Video: Paul Krugman and his audience eerily similar to Jim Jones and HIS audience

This is just plain creepy. It's definitely a softer version of what Jim Jones got the more than 900 people who followed him to commit suicide but it's very similar in two respects. The leader - in this case Krugman - espouses "death panels and higher taxes". The reaction he got was one of laughing approval. Who in their right mind cheers for death and taxes?

No one, which is more than enough evidence that these people are not in their right minds.

It's extremely bizarre to see and hear people cheer or laugh at something that will lead to either their own premature deaths or the premature deaths of their loved ones. It's a macabre form of groupthink and it's exactly what happened when New York Times liberal columnist Paul Krugman told an audience at an historic Synagogue in Washington, D.C. last week exactly that.

Listen not to what Krugman says at about the 2:15 mark but also to how the crowd reacts.

h/t Breitbart:



Here is video of Rep. Leo Ryan (D) in Jonestown the night before more than 900 followers of Jim Jones ended their lives. Note how loudly the crowd cheers when Ryan states people in the cult think it's the "best thing that ever happened to them in their whole life".

One day later, Ryan was shot dead by Jones' thugs and all of the people who cheered, took their own lives. Is that something to cheer about?



Think it's a stretch? Do you remember the reaction Robert Reich got when, in 2007, he advocated death panels and higher health care costs while speaking at Berkeley?  In fact, the laughter Reich elicited was even more pronounced than what Krugman got. The students cheered the premature deaths of their parents as well as a future in which they would live fewer years as well.



Three weeks before Rep. Ryan showed up in Guyana in 1978, the people held a vote - led by Jones - in which they unanimously voted to commit suicide. How is what Krugman and Reich have advocated any different?

Oh, and another similarity... Jones ingratiated himself with Democrats.

Relevant portion starts at the 4:40 mark

**CONTENT WARNING**

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

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

Via CNS News:

Is House Leadership ready to Cave on Gun Control too?

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

Via Doc Thompson:

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

Click here to see the email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Of course, this will never get old:



h/t The Blaze

Memo to John Boehner: 'In the name of God, go.'

In 1940, as the fate of Great Britain was in grave doubt, Member of Parliament (MP) Leo Amery gave a speech that called for the necessary ouster of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In 2012, the United States finds itself in a similar position and the man who holds the position that wields the most power is John Boehner, someone on par with Chamberlain. Here is an excerpt from Amery's speech, via the Guardian:

Somehow or other we must get into the government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this house found that its troops were being beaten by the dash and daring of Prince Rupert's cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this: "I said to him, 'Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows'… You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still."

It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail. We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Speaker of the House John Boehner is a weak leader who must be ruthlessly discarded, not with violence but with resolve and fortitude. His fight or flight response is to cry; we saw that after the Republicans won a majority in the House after a tidal wave of Tea Party support and enthusiasm. Conservative voters did their part. They put Republican congressmen - who chose to have Boehner lead them - in charge of the House of Representatives. Boehner was entrusted with voter confidence and he has failed them.

In the first two years of the Obama administration, Boehner was essentially powerless to stop the Democratic agenda. But he talked very tough. Why? For one thing, there were no real consequences - other than support from a base that lapped up the red meat afforded them by a commiserating leader - for doing so.

Remember this outrage at the stimulus bill?



For some perspective, the stimulus bill that Boehner was so indignant about then is a drop in the bucket of what he's advocating for today - when he actually has power. Negotiations to avoid the 'fiscal cliff' have involved two people behind closed doors - Barack Obama and John Boehner - and every time those two people emerge from behind those closed doors, one of them emerges as a beaten man, a man on the brink of crying.

We know this because that beaten man proceeds to negotiate with himself.

In 2009 and 2010, Boehner was leading the charge against closed-door meetings; now he's a participant. In fact, he's advocating for the same deal that former Speaker Pelosi put forth several months ago.

Via The Hill:

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told House Republicans on Tuesday he will move to a “Plan B” on the fiscal cliff by having the House vote on legislation to extend tax rates on annual income under $1 million.

The bill would allow tax rates on annual income above $1 million to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, but make permanent lower rates on income below that threshold, Boehner's office said.

Boehner's office noted that Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) have previously expressed support for raising tax rates on annual income above $1 million.

But a Schumer spokesman said things changed with the reelection of President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to raise tax rates on annual income above $250,000.

"Republicans should've taken Senator Schumer's offer two years ago when they had the chance," Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said. "We've had an election on the president's tax plan, the president won, and Republicans can't turn the clock back."

Translation: Boehner is groveling to the Democrats with a plan in his hand that Pelosi put forward several months ago, before the election. Predictably, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and the Democrats are turning up their noses. They are doing so because Boehner is not acting like he's the Speaker of the House; he's acting like a semi-reluctant presidential subject.

If Obama is the cat, Boehner is the yarn ball.

Yes, Boehner is so weak that not only is he doing deals behind closed doors with Obama - something he decried when he wasn't in power - but he is advocating a position once espoused by Nancy Pelosi when he's in the room alone with the president. And Obama is still telling him no.

If such a position was strategic and done early on in this process, Boehner could be excused. Now that it appears to be an act of desperation, he may as well be running around a race track in his underwear:



Imagine if, in 2009, Obama and Pelosi negotiated behind closed doors to negotiate a new tax deal. Not only would Boehner have heard a cacophony of outrage from Tea Partiers but he'd have responded with like-minded outrage... and it would have been easy because it wouldn't have required leadership.

Whether it's caving on tax rates or the debt ceiling, Boehner is revealing himself as a political eunuch on practically a daily basis. This debate is no longer about the 'fiscal cliff'. Frankly, we've already gone over it. This is about Obama breaking the will of conservatives by breaking the back of John Boehner.

The problem is that Boehner's back is much more brittle than the back of the conservative wing. It should be the other way around, which is why we conservatives must shout with one very clear voice:

"You (Boehner) have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, we say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Let's face it. Boehner has failed and must be "ruthlessly discard(ed)" because of that failure.

Otherwise, we all fail.

Is Paul Ryan wading into the Big Muddy?

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

You can't play both sides of the fence.

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

Via Breitbart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Petraeus come to mind when you watch this?



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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Breitbart:

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

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

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

Via Red State:

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

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

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

Schmidt and Murphy are the political Quislings of conservatism.

Say what? Say who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And...

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

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

Uber-stealth jihad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's become our only hope for change.

Via the Right Scoop:



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



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

Preventing John Boehner from becoming the Neville Chamberlain of Obama's second term

Barack Obama has obviously been strengthened with re-election. He can now pursue his left wing agenda unfettered by the concerns of another political campaign. The Democrats' power in the Senate was strengthened as well; they inexplicably gained seats when they had far more to protect than did Republicans. In at least two cases, they chose radical leftists in both Massachusetts and Wisconsin over moderates.

Conversely, the Republicans gained seats in the House, thereby (theoretically) making Speaker John Boehner's position stronger than before. He retains his position as the most powerful Republican in elected office. However, with the aforementioned realities, there will be even more pressure on him to lead. Democrats will try to push him around more than before and conservatives will demand now more than ever that he hold the line.

Unfortunately, based on Boehner's history, the prospects for the former seem to be far more likely than the latter. He will be pulled in two very different directions but early indications - the day after the election - are that Boehner is sending signals that he could be more conciliatory during the first half of Obama's second term than he was in the second half of the president's first term.

Less than twenty-four hours after the election, Boehner was offering to put tax hikes on the table (new sources of revenue) and suggested that the election was a mandate for both parties to work together. This is very troubling talk from the Speaker. When the Constitution is under assault, working together with those perpetrating that assault is not an acceptable form of compromise.

Via CNBC:

House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.

"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.

"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.

This is not the time for compromise; it's time for leadership and solidarity with the Constitution. Boehner could have done more to lead on things like the Fast and Furious investigation, for example. Doing so likely would have put it front and center, making it a top issue. He didn't (in much the same way that Romney punted on Benghazi in debate #3). In fact, Boehner's relative silence on Fast and Furious seemed to indicate that he wanted it to go away. He even scheduled Eric Holder's contempt hearing on the same day as the Obamacare ruling at the Supreme Court.

The Speaker was likely banking on a Romney win, which would have been the path of least resistance on things like Fast and Furious. As it is now, the path of least resistance is even less desirable but, based on Boehner's history - and his words yesterday - probably more likely for him to take.

Conservatives will have their work cut out for them when it comes to holding Boehner accountable but that task is shaping up to be a top priority if they are to prevent the Speaker from coming down with Neville Chamberlainism.

Video: Obama tells Romney his finances should be 'an open book'

When Barack Obama talks like this, it's usually frustrating for two reasons. The first is that it's a bit hypocritical for him to talk about being transparent based on his nearly four-year record. The second is that the Romney campaign has done a lousy job of pointing out that hypocrisy.

First, check out this video of Obama speaking to the Press Corps. yesterday.

Via GWP:



As for how the Romney campaign is coming up short in its responses to the Obama campaign on this matter, there really isn't a more obvious rebuke - for multiple reasons - than the administration's handling of the Fast and Furious documents; Obama asserted Executive Privilege on the same day that Congress found his Attorney General in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress.

One might counter that by saying that Obama issued a qualifier at the end of the video above by referring to 'finances', which would seemingly exempt Fast and Furious from such transparency.

To this day, we still don't know everything about how Obama was able to go to Harvard and Columbia but we do have this video from 2008 that should warrant further questions / investigation about the source of that funding:

Allen West saying to Obama what Romney should be saying to Obama

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) is now calling for Obama to release the Fast and Furious documents that have been subpoenaed by Congress in response to the campaign's demand for Romney to release multiple years of tax returns. This is such a blatantly obvious response to Obama's tactics that it makes Romney look politically weak not to do so. Thank goodness West is out there doing it for him (somebody has to do it).

Via The Hill:

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) set high stakes in an offered “deal” with President Obama on Friday.

Obama’s campaign isn’t backing down on requests to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns — on Friday, campaign manager Jim Messina offered to stop asking if he releases five years' worth — but the freshman Florida congressman had a counteroffer for Obama.

“Show us your sealed college records and Operation Fast and Furious White House memos, and we will all show you our tax returns,” West wrote on his Facebook page Friday.

The Hill goes on to say this is not new, that Trump has called on Obama to release his college transcripts. The problem is that demanding the release of the Fast and Furious documents is a much more salient argument because it goes to the very heart of many of the Obama campaign's claims about what Romney is guilty of doing / not doing.

The collective charges against Romney represent the penultimate example of projection.

Regular readers to this blog know that I have been calling on Romney to hit back at the Obama campaign by demanding Obama release the Fast and Furious documents. Romney has had countless opportunities to do so.

1. When Obama granted amnesty to illegals and attempted to portray himself as someone who cared for the welfare of Mexicans, Romney should have pointed to Fast and Furious, an operation that led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans.
2. When David Axelrod compared Mitt Romney to Richard Nixon for being too secretive, Romney should have pointed to the fact that Obama more closely mirrors Nixon by asserting Executive Privilege to prevent Congressionally subpoenaed documents from being released.
3. When the Obama campaign raised cain about when Romney left Bain and said that Romney might be a 'felon', Romney should have pointed to Fast and Furious. If anything is felonious, it's that operation, which included the involvement of officials at the highest levels of Obama's Justice Department.
4. When an Obama Super PAC ad implied that Mitt Romney is responsible for the death of a woman who got cancer, Romney should have brought up Fast and Furious, an operation that the Obama administration is ultimately responsible for. Hundreds of people are dead as a direct result of it, including Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
5. When the Obama campaign demands that Romney release his tax returns, Romney should demand that Obama release the documents over Fast and Furious that he asserted Executive Privilege over as Eric Holder was being found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress.

If you're in the camp of those who believe Romney needs to fight, harping on Obama's actions in response to his Attorney General being held in criminal and civil contempt of Congress - bipartisan in both cases - going after the president over Fast and Furious is a no-brainer.

West shouldn't be saying what Romney should be saying; Romney should.

Romney brings up Fast and Furious; DNC Chair engages in Blatant Projection

The good news is that in this 7:13 clip from Mitt Romney's appearance on Fox and Friends, he brought up Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege with Fast and Furious in response to questions about the efforts of the president's campaign to paint Romney as "secretive" and less than transparent while implying that he may be a "felon." The bad news is that it doesn't come until the 6:40 mark and almost appears to strike Romney as an afterthought.

That said, Romney does deserve credit for bringing it up.

Here's the entire quote, via Breitbart:

“If we want to talk about transparency, the real issue is, why has this president used his presidential power and executive privilege to keep the information about the Fast and Furious program from being explained to the American people?” asked Governor Romney. “This is not some personal matter. This is the action of his administration.”

It's good to see Romney go here but he really should do it right out of the gate, especially after you see what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said just a few hours later on MSNBC. In an election that is supposed to be all about contrasts, there isn't a starker one when it comes to releasing tax returns vs. releasing documents that could implicate high ranking administration officials in a mass murder scheme.



About four hours after Romney's appearance on Fox, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz actually doubled down on the Bain attacks so far, she actually teetered on the edge of an abyss, which could quite possibly mean there's little to no concern about Romney continuing down the Fast and Furious road.

From MSNBC, via WaPo, DWS engaged in the most palpable, smack-you-upside-the-head form of Projection that I just had to decode it. Romney should take Wasserman-Schultz's words, make the following changes and then issue a press release:

"All of these questions could be cleared up if he (Romney) [Obama] released multiple years of returns [the subpoenaed Fast and Furious documents] but obviously, there's something he's trying to hide. There's obviously something in those returns [documents Eric Holder was found in contempt for withholding] that he doesn't want the American people to see... Mitt Romney [Barack Obama] is obviously wanting to keep something under wraps and we're going to continue to hold him accountable for that... The little glimpse that we have gotten, from the one year he (Romney) [7600 of 140,000 pages of Fast and Furious documents Eric Holder] has released, he (Romney) [the Department of Justice] has a Swiss Bank Account lied to Congress... If it's not to avoid paying taxes in America [producing evidence that proves a coverup in a deadly operation approved at the highest levels of Justice], then the rest of the story - if he released those returns [subpoenaed documents] - would show us. He won't answer the questions. He's asking us just to take his word for it and, I'm sorry, you've got to come clean and show us when you're running for [you are the] President of the United States."

Here is the definition of projection:

Projection is a type of defense mechanism. In projection, a person experiences an emotion or thought that they aren't able to cope with. So, instead, they perceive the thought or feeling as if it had come from someone else. One example of this mechanism is the person who is angry at a friend, but does not feel comfortable with feelings of anger in himself. He may instead deny these feelings and imagine that his friend is the angry one.

Folks, I don't know who's advising Romney but if he's not bludgeoning the Obama campaign with this, he's not ready to be President.

Projection like this can usually only be found in psych wards.

The relevant portion begins at the 4:30 mark:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is the IRS that 'Civilian National Security Force' Obama talked about?

As cuts to the military mount, the ranks of the IRS are increasing. Could the IRS be that 'Civilian National Security Force' that Obama talked about on the 2008 campaign trail?

Maine's Governor Paul LePage seems to think it might be.

Via Maine Sunday Telegram:

Gov. Paul LePage used his weekly radio address to blast President Obama's health care law and described the Internal Revenue Service as the "new Gestapo."

"We the people have been told there is no choice," he said. "You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo -- the IRS."

Many people saw that and wondered what exactly Obama meant. Regardless of where you stand, we're getting closer to finding out.



h/t WZ

Former White House Press Secretary: Romney needs to release tax returns; Romney silent on Obama not releasing Fast and Furious Documents

If this post seems similar to the last one, it is. This should be getting incredibly easy for Romney. The Obama campaign is practically begging him to counter by demanding that Obama lift Executive Privilege on the subpoenaed Fast and Furious documents. No, I mean, seriously. Team Obama has painted a big, fat Fast and Furious bullseye on its chest.

The latest example comes courtesy of Robert Gibbs, via CNN (h/t WZ):

President Barack Obama's campaign adviser Robert Gibbs continued to hammer Mitt Romney on Sunday over questions about the candidate's overseas financial accounts.

Gibbs, however, stopped short of saying whether Romney was in violation of any tax evasion laws, saying "nobody knows."

"The best way to figure out if he is complying with American tax law is to have him release more of the tax returns," the former White House press secretary said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Let's see, how should Romney respond.... How about with something like, "And the best way to figure out if Eric Holder had nothing to do with Fast and Furious is for the President to rescind his Executive Privilege assertion."

But alas, Romney apparently loves being on defense:

Obama's campaign has also been forcefully pushing a Washington Post report that calls Romney's former private equity firm, Bain Capital, a "pioneer" in outsourcing jobs overseas. The campaign has made the report a focal point of its ads against Romney, and the president frequently mentions it in his stump speeches.

Romney's campaign, however, has said there is no evidence that Bain advised its companies to outsource while Romney was still in charge of the firm, which he left in 1999.

The campaign cites a detailed report by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that said the Obama ads carried some claims that were untrue, and other assertions that only had thin supporting evidence.

Here is video of Gibbs' appearance on CNN's State of the Union. His instantly classic response - in light of the Fast and Furious documents - about whether or not Romney has done anything illegal is: "We don't know!... Nobody knows..."

Hey Mitt! Demand Obama lift Executive Privilege!

Obama Lied... Again; Individual Mandate ruled a Tax; Chief Justice 'Judas' betrays Constitution

Barack Obama lied... again, this time about the Individual Mandate not being a tax. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who sided with the four professed liberals on the court, has gone to absurdly extreme lengths to make sure the law was upheld. The Individual Mandate was ruled unconstitutional as a penalty or mandate but Roberts decided to rule it constitutional as a tax, something Obama insisted it was not.

Here is Obama with George Stephanopolous on September 20, 2009 telling America that the Individual Mandate was NOT a tax.



That all changed when the legal argument from the Obama administration in front of the Supreme Court was that the mandate should be upheld because it is a tax. Translation: Obama lied... again.



As for Justice John 'Judas' Roberts...

The issue of severability was at the heart of the decision of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson last year. Quite simply, the severability clause allows a law to stand if parts of it are thrown out. Obamacare did NOT have a severability clause. Vinson found the Individual Mandate unconstitutional and consequently ruled that the entire law had to be thrown out.

Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to arrive at his decision today. Instead of ruling the Individual Mandate unconstitutional, which would require the law to be thrown out because it has no severability clause, Roberts ruled the Mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause but found it constitutional as a tax, which the Obama administration argued it was not.

Chief Justice Roberts has just betrayed his nation.

**UPDATE** As Weasel Zippers points out, the White House website still has a post on the site, authored by Jason Furman, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. Note the screen shot, taken today. The White House position is that the Individual Mandate is NOT a tax, though Obama still gets what he wants despite Roberts' disagreeing with him on what the Mandate is:

Video: Best Political Meltdown ever?

This guy's name is State Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) and he's fed up. Relative to the meltdown, it really doesn't matter all that much why he explodes on the House floor but it's about a bill that is going to raise property taxes on his constituents to deal with the state's pension crisis while Chicago residents skate. As you can see, he's lashing out at the majority party in general and the Speaker in particular.

The reason? His constituents are likely giving him more than an earful back at his district and he wants them to know that he's with them but the Democrats are preventing him from doing what those who elected him to office want him to do. I think this is part theatrics for those constituents but it also comes across as raw emotion.

Frankly, if we had more of this, C-SPAN's ratings would definitely go up.

Via Political Wire, h/t Hot Air:

Is Romney really considering a Pro-choice, tax-raising Governor as his Running Mate?

It's a bit too early to get worked up about this but the mere fact that a pro-choice, tax-hiking Governor is even being remotely considered as Romney's running mate is disturbing. If team Romney does select someone like Nevada's Brian Sandoval, it will communicate a 'have your cake and eat it too' attitude on steroids.

There's a children's story about a dog with a bone who sees his reflection in the water. Thinking it's another dog with another bone, he tries to get it. In attempting to do so, he loses the one in his mouth. Romney very well could be that dog if he were to choose a 'mini-Mitt.' It will mean that he's an ideologue who thinks he can have whatever he wants and conservatives will still vote for him because the anti-Obama sentiment is so strong.

Via Daily Caller:

Along with being relatively new and unvetted, he (Sandoval) is pro-choice; and he has raised taxes twice during his short time as governor. Those are deal breakers, according to several Republican strategists.

“I just don’t see with his rumored pro-choice stance how he fits into the equation,” Republican strategist Chuck Warren told The Daily Caller. “Great governor, superb future, but I think that one policy position makes him untenable for [the Republican] evangelical base.”

“The pluses of Sandoval: he’s in a key state, he’s a governor, and he’s Hispanic, three huge considerations of the Romney team,” added Republican strategist Phillip Stutts. “The downside is he recently had to raise taxes,” something the conservative electorate would not like.

Trey Hardin, another Republican strategist, said Sandoval would be a poor choice for Romney.

Again, reading that, you're left with the impression that Sandoval is an unlikely choice but that he's even being looked at when the base is already disillusioned with Romney only validates the concerns of conservatives. The opening two stanzas of the Caller's piece seem to indicate that a door to this possibility is open, at least to some degree:

Conventional wisdom among Mitt Romney VP-watchers is that the presumptive GOP nominee should pick a running mate who is experienced and rather boring, someone who would neither embarrass him nor outshine him.

Just two years into his first term as Nevada governor, Brian Sandoval doesn’t exactly fit that bill. But a source familiar with the proceedings said not to count Sandoval out.

We're already staring at an election that is far too close for one simple reason: Romney is a liberal Republican who doesn't energize the base. That was McCain's problem and it all changed when he picked Sarah Palin. In fact, he wouldn't go anywhere without her on the campaign trail because he knew that by himself, his crowds would be miniscule. With her, they were enormous.

To be fair, Romney has an advantage McCain didn't have. Obama-mania has dried up but his chances go up, not down, if he were to pick an energizing conservative like Palin.

If Romney doesn't balance the ticket with a strong conservative, his chances of beating Obama will decrease, regardless of how strong the anti-Obama sentiment is.

Period.

Video: Hollywood Whacko Will Smith tips his hand on tax threshold

Will Smith, the guy who said in 2009 that "Barack Obama as an idea marks an evolutionary flashpoint for humanity," has apparently revealed a percentage of his wealth that is too high to part with. That figure is either at or below 75%. This is interesting because whenever conservatives engage liberals on tax policy, the left never gives a percentage that's fair. They always default to some "fair share" narrative and their brains seem impervious to the fact that 47% of Americans pay NO taxes and the richest 1% pays over 35% of the federal tax bill.

Here, Smith is confronted with the plan of newly elected French President Francois Hollande - an ideological clone of Smith's hero, Barack Obama - and backtracks. If Smith is willing to pay 30% and is unwilling to pay 75%, what is his limit? Inquiring minds.....

Via Daily Caller:


Will Smith on "Barack Obama as an idea..."

Video: How Illegal Aliens get big Tax Refunds from IRS

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

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

Via WTHR, h/t Lynn Woolley:

Video: Jon Lovitz explains his anti-Obama Rant

SNL's Jon Lovitz went on an anti-Obama, profanity-laden rant last week. At the rood of his anger was the idea that the "rich need to pay their fair share." It was obvious that Lovitz is against the 1% vs. the 99% meme. One week later, Lovitz appeared on CNN's Headline News to either defend or walk back his comments.

To his credit, Lovitz stood by his comment but he also referred to himself as a "Democrat" who voted for Obama. I can cut him some slack on that one because he's gone much further than most celebrities. Referring to yourself as a Republican when you're a Hollywood guy is the kiss of death. For all we know, he gets it but is just picking his battles. The battle he picks here is a good one and he's right on the money.

It is refreshing to see someone like Lovitz enunciate a conservative position so well, even if he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Also, make no mistake. When celebrities come out and talk like this, it scares the left. That's why there's so much pressure on these celebrities to toe the liberal line. It's probably why so many of them come off as being so completely vacant intellectually.

Anyway, Lovitz gets it.



h/t The Blaze