John Boehner Projection: Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows'?!

Caveat necessary. The video below does not consist of House Speaker John Boehner saying that Obama's balls are made out of marshmellows. However, it does include a man named John Mauldin who claims to have been present when Boehner said it and it's not at all likely that someone like Mauldin would falsely attribute those words to Boehner.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume Boehner actually said it. According to Mauldin, the House Speaker made the charge during the debt ceiling debate, which took place in the summer of 2011. In a word, the charge meant that Obama lacked 'audacity', which is defined as:

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

Yep, that pretty much describes Obama. It's also the opposite of Boehner's assessment.

If we include the debt ceiling debate and every battle Boehner has been involved in with Obama since then, how many has Boehner actually won?

Uh, can't think of any.

When it comes to the most powerful Republican in elected office (Boehner) and the most powerful Democrat in elected office (Obama), there have been two kinds of battles.

1. Battles fought
2. Battles not fought

As for the battles fought...

• The debt ceiling
• The 2012 elections
• Fiscal cliff
• Tax cuts
• Spending cuts
• Sequestration
• Continuing Resolution
• Healthcare Debate
• Deficit / Debt Reduction

In all of the battles fought, it's hard to find one instance in which Obama has lost since the 2010 elections, which were actually won by the same Tea Party Boehner doesn't seem to have much regard for.

The debt continues to grow, despite the fact that the House is responsible for the purse strings; the 2012 elections were a major embarrassment for the Republican Party in general, to include Boehner as the House's gavel-holder. His lack of fight after the 2010 elections contributed to the base staying home in 2012. Boehner bemoaned making mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks by saying he shouldn't have negotiated with Obama and that he was 'full of regret' over how he handled it. Spending cuts? What spending cuts? Sequestration? Well, despite it being Obama's idea, Boehner is proving woefully inadequate when it comes to making the president own it.The continuing resolution debate will heat up in March. If the government is not allowed to shut down, Boehner will lose another round to Obama. Healthcare debate? Obama definitely didn't lack fortitude / audacity there.

As for debt / deficit reduction... Obama loves runaway debt and deficits. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Boehner wants to stem / reverse the tide. After the Republicans were swept into office in great numbers in the 2010 elections, Boehner had momentum (and the gavel). When it comes to the national debt / annual deficits, nothing has changed.

Advantage: 'Marshmellow' balls.

As for the battles not fought, two come to mind:

• Fast and Furious
• Benghazi Investigation

How about the battles not fought? Boehner REFUSED to make an issue of Fast and Furious; the Obama administration was wobbly in the knees for several months. Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa was essentially on his own. It was obvious Boehner wanted to avoid getting to the bottom of a scandal that demanded justice.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

How about the investigation into Benghazi? Boehner has been all but silent. Rep. Frank Wolf has twice formally asked the Speaker to form a House Select Committee to help get to the bottom of that scandal, which involves dead Americans and likely criminal activity on the part of the Obama administration.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

Really?! I believe Barack Obama is the worst president this country has ever had but to accuse him of having 'balls' of 'marshmellows' is rather audacious in light of your track record when it comes to fighting him.

Boehner's behavior smacks of projection. His entire record over the last two years reveals a man who is afraid to fight and is getting beaten like a drum. Yet, the guy who beats him is the coward? Mr. Boehner, with all due respect, the accusation you allegedly made about Obama 18 months ago appears to be an accusation you should be levying at yourself. Instead, you appear to be employing a psychological defense mechanism that is preventing you from making that admission.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism which states:

Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

If Boehner is uncomfortable accepting the reality that it is he who lacks courage, he very well could be projecting that lack of courage onto Obama. The question that needs to be asked of Boehner is a simple one:

If Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows' Mr. Speaker, how come he keeps beating you?

There's really no reason to doubt the authenticity of what Mauldin attributed to Boehner as having said but it is truly unbelievable that Boehner - of all people - would be the one to say it:



h/t WZ

Video: Did Jay Leno bolster the credibility of the man who infiltrated the Weather Underground?

There is an old adage that says the best jokes are the ones rooted in truth. If they weren't, they wouldn't make sense and therefore, wouldn't be funny. During his opening monologue, comedian Jay Leno cracked a joke about Barack Obama's inability to understand economics. The joke resonated with the audience which laughed and applauded. Following the old adage, it stands to reason that Obama truly does have a problem understanding economics.

Via Breitbart:



Now, consider the words of Larry Grathwohl who, in 1969 became the only man to successfully infiltrate the Weather Underground for the FBI. He moved in those circles for nearly a year and knew what Bill Ayers truly believed and thought. In perhaps the most haunting account of the Weather Underground, Grathwohl explained what he heard at a meeting which included Ayers.

Since Obama's 2008 campaign revealed a relationship he had with Ayers, the president has attempted to distance himself from that relationship. Grathwohl was either ignored or smeared. The truth is that the relationship between Obama and Ayers was much closer than he wanted anyone to know; that is an irrefutable fact and Leno may have inadvertently contributed to demonstrating it.

I have posted the video from 1982 below before but pay attention to what Grathwohl says beginning at the :20 mark:

"I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we, we become responsible then for administrating you know, 250 million people. And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics - how are you going to clothe and feed these people?"

No thought to economics - something else Obama and Ayers share in common.

Videos: the Tale of two Labor Secretaries

This is quite the contrast. First up, Barack Obama's Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis. She literally says that unemployment checks actually helps the economy because the recipients of those checks spend them.



Here is Elaine Chao, Labor Secretary from 2001 - 2009. This interview is about one year old but when compared to the insanity enunciated by Solis above, it's quite a salient contrast between logic and the absurd notion that unemployment checks stimulate the economy.

Oh, both Solis and Chao are minorites.

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.

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):

The United Gaults of America

Unfortunately, this kind of reality was totally predictable and totally avoidable. Nonetheless, the miscreant Obamautomatons wouldn't listen. Now, reality is smacking them in the face and they still don't get it. We are beginning to see where the road of an organized labor mentality leads.

The Hostess baking company told its Baking union employees that if there was a strike, plants would be closed. The union members went on strike anyway.

The very predictable result?

You guessed it.

"We should be treated with respeck."



Last week, Applebee's CEO Zane Tankel indicated that all of his full-time employees may have to go to part-time because of Obamacare. Layoffs are also a possibility.



Let's not forget Papa John's. The CEO and founder, John Schnatter said he will pass the additional costs of Obamacare onto the customers and will likely do things similar to what Tankel seems to be preparing to do if sales drop.

Here is a news report from before the election about Schnatter's plans if Obamacare is enacted:



These business owners and CEO's are not colluding; these are natural reactions to insane policies and laws.

I don't blame them one bit.

h/t GWP

How Barack Obama could lose the Media in his second term

In Lyndon Johnson's second term, it was his failures in Vietnam; Watergate broke in Richard Nixon's first term but took him down after reelection; Iran-Contra dogged Ronald Reagan; Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice late in his second term; and George W. Bush's second term was marred with failures in Iraq, a stalled agenda, and a mortgage crisis that hit just as he was leaving office. Taken together, these realities do not portend well for Barack Obama in the next four years. However, Obama has something none of the aforementioned presidents did - an unyieldingly complicit media.

Like Nixon, signs of scandal reared their heads toward the end of Obama's first term but unlike Watergate, disinterest throughout the mainstream media - save for a few exceptions - has been palpable. As Nixon was being sworn in for a second time, the likes of Woodward and Bernstein were doing all they could to get the truth out. Today, there is more than enough smoke - both literally and figuratively - when it comes to what happened in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 for the media to replicate its success.

Yet, it seems collectively disinterested.

Economic realities may do to Barack Obama what legitimate journalism will not. The former could end up being the catalyst for the latter.

It's time for a self-evident truth. Liberal, socialist economic policies are doomed to failure and always have been. It is as predictable as the sun coming up, water boiling at 212 degrees, or an apple falling to the earth when you let go of it. This necessarily means that Barack Obama's economic policies will fail as well. They've failed already and although there is pain felt as a result of runaway debt, deficits, and unemployment, there is not enough for the media to do its job.

That could change (don't laugh).

Almost immediately after Obama was re-elected, companies began announcing layoffs. People have been getting out of the stock market and moving to cash and gold. Taxes are going up on everyone and talk of a fiscal cliff, which was largely ignored by the media before the election, is now being given more attention.

Let's face it. The United States is likely headed for economic collapse. We may have been headed there even if Mitt Romney had won. Much has been baked in to the Obama economy already. Talk of repealing Obamacare was just that - talk. Even among Republicans, there were discussions about keeping part of the law. Imagine a scenario whereby the economy Romney inherited was too much to overcome and it collapsed on his watch in a year or two; it would be his fault because it would have happened on his watch.

Fiscal signs are pointing to rising food prices, runaway inflation, and higher unemployment in the coming months and years. It will all happen on Obama's watch and it will all have been his doing (blaming Bush at that point could cause even his most sycophantic media allies to roll their eyes). Misery will befall many more Americans. At some point, reality smacks everyone in the face, including liberal media types who continue down the track, despite the whistle and headlight of an oncoming train getting closer.

As Benghazi-gate chugs along - now thanks to the added element of a sexual scandal involving the CIA Director - the economy will continue to get worse. Barack Obama will lose more and more Americans who will eventually realize that they have been foolishly duped, thereby making them even angrier. Like two elevators, as the economy descends, interest in what really happened in Benghazi could rise. People who have traditionally sat on the sidelines of the political playing field will start to take notice because their own lives will be affected, ironically because of their own indifference for so many years.

Moreover, once the truth about what happened in Benghazi is revealed, it could very well be worse than all of the other second term presidential scandals combined.

For years, one of Barack Obama's credos has been to never let a crisis go to waste. He used the mortgage crisis to push for the Stimulus package; he used the lie that is global warming to push for cap and trade and green energy, which has done nothing but line the pockets of his political cronies while bankrupting America; he pointed to the number of guns going to Mexico from America as evidence that tighter gun control was needed (never mind that his Justice Department was actually involved in facilitating that crisis).

Obama's ideological mentor - Saul Alinsky - taught that all events of a period should be used to one's own advantage. Another self-evident truth is that Obama very much groks that idea. Unfortunately for him, there will come a point when he will no longer be able to do that because a crisis will one day be created that - no matter how it is spun - will spin right back to him.

Though it would come at great expense to the nation, Barack Obama might just lose the media. It will have been a shame that it took them so long to do their jobs.

When the bells of two elevators sound, one could be the economy reaching the ground floor and the other could be Benghazi-gate reaching the top of the media's ivory tower.

Video: Classic Margaret Thatcher on her 87th Birthday

First up, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher shreds a socialist...



Second, her prescience in 1990 about the then future of the Euro only solidifies her legacy...

Video: Great line from Romney on the stump

If your kid makes the honor roll...

"...don't say thanks to the bus driver."

Maybe the delivery ain't that great but, hey, he's trying.



h/t GWP

Video: Newt destroys CNN's Piers Morgan on Economy

I jumped aboard the Newt for President bandwagon after his two South Carolina debates prior to that state's primary, which he won handily. He was subsequently destroyed by Romney' Super PAC ads, lost the Florida primary, and never recovered.

Last night, Gingrich demonstrated why he was a better choice than Romney. In addition to thoroughly spanking CNN's Piers Morgan for blatant left-wing partisanship and vacuous amount of economic knowledge, Gingrich is much better at going on offense.



h/t Hot Air

Video: Allen West's comment about Commies in Congress still has legs

In an interview with Mitt Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom, Wolf Blitzer brought up statements made by Allen West in April about 78-81 members of the Democratic Party being Communists. Is it a coincidence that Blitzer did this on the same day that Stanley Kurtz exposed Barack Obama as a liar in 2008 regarding his membership in the Socialist New Party?

It's understandable why Ferhnstrom didn't take the bait; the strategy of the Romney campaign has been to stay on message, which is this election is about the economy and nothing else. It's also understandable because that strategy seems to be working.

Nonetheless, it is a bit of a disappointment to see Romney's mouthpiece say that the campaign doesn't agree with West. Why? Because West is correct. This was actually an opportunity for Ferhnstrom to possibly get Blitzer to stop talking about the subject by bringing up the new revelation from Kurtz, that Obama was a member of a socialist political party and lied about it. Not bringing that up was very John McCainish on the part of Ferhnstrom.

CLICK HERE to see the exchange at Huffington Post.

Here is the statement made by West two months ago that has gotten under the skin of the libs. If it isn't true, why hasn't it died a quick death? As for Ferhnstrom, it's too bad that the truth has become so politically untenable to profess.



h/t WZ

Video: Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner the latest to channel Jim Carrey character

Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) John Galvin is the latest official under the Obama administration to channel Jim Carrey's character in 'Fun with Dick and Jane.' Galvin is made to look beyond foolish in answering questions posed to him by Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, who mockingly and rightfully sought clarification on what the BLS considers 'green jobs.'

More HERE.

Just watch:



Here's John Galvin Jim Carrey as Dick:



h/t Hot Air

Another Obama EPA Administrator tells the truth (in secret)

You might remember EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz telling what he thought was a limited audience that his objective is to "crucify" oil companies to get other oil companies to fall in line. Now it's time to be introduced to EPA Region I Administrator Carl Spalding. During a speech at which he likely thought featured a limited audience as well, Spalding admitted that the job of the EPA is to put the coal industry out of business.

Via Jim Inhofe Press Office, h/t GWP:



Armendariz resigned after his comments, saying that he had become "a distraction." Now that we have Spalding on video expressing very similar sentiment - the crippling of energy industries, can we officially say that the EPA is engaged in an Obama administration conspiracy?

Is Boehner more responsible for increased Debt than Obama?

Don't look now but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) may have another reason to cry. As Barack Obama rightfully faces criticism for his spending, Boehner should be taking much of the heat. We all know how this president likes to blame others. He may have a legitimate line of attack when it comes to Boehner.

Via CNS News:

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which took office in January 2011, has enacted federal spending bills under which the national debt has increased more in less than one term of Congress than in the first 97 Congresses combined.

In the fifteen months that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives--led by Speaker John Boehner--has effectively enjoyed a constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government’s debt has increased by about $1.59 trillion.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution says: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” A law appropriating money cannot be enacted unless it is approved by the House.

The approximately $1.59 trillion in new debt accumulated since the Republican-controlled House gained a veto over federal spending legislation is more than the total increase in the federal debt between 1789, when the first Congress convened, and October 1984, when the 98th Congress was nearing the end of its second session.

This is yet another in a long line of examples that demonstrate why John Boehner is the wrong man for the job. He can't lead. Also, remember the question posed by CBS' Leslie Stahl that made Boehner cry shortly after the 2010 election, when he knew he would become Speaker.

As Speaker, Boehner is presiding over that which he professed to not wanting to see happen - snuffing out the American dream for future generations.

Can we now say that this was Boehner's 'fight or flight' response?

He has chosen flight.

Is China $1 Trillion in debt... to America?

This is certainly an interesting twist, reported by McClatchy of all places. Did you know that the American people are holding roughly $1 Trillion in Chinese bond debt? How is this possible, you ask?

Via McClatchy:

The story begins nearly 100 years ago, in 1913, when the government of China began issuing bonds to foreign investors and governments for infrastructure work to modernize the country. As the country fell into civil war in 1927, paying these debts became increasingly difficult and the government fell into default. Even so, in April 1938, the Nationalist government of China began to issue U.S.-dollar denominated bonds to finance the war against Japan's brutal invasion.

Locked in a pitched battle for survival, the government issued these bonds into 1940. As part of its wartime financial aid, the U.S. government further provided a $500 million credit to China in March 1942, shipping gold there and helping to stabilize the currency. In return, it appears that the U.S. government redeemed some of these dollar-denominated bonds. But China doesn't appear to have repaid this debt either, according to State Department records, and the declaration of the People's Republic of China in 1949 ended decades of political, military and financial cooperation.

While successor governments are usually bound by the debts of predecessor governments, the new Communist government refused to pay any of these claims. The issue lay dormant for decades, just as the bilateral relationship did. Then, in 1979, as part of normalizing relations, Washington released government financial claims regarding the expropriation of American property and appears to have dropped the matter of the war debt entirely. However, it is one thing for government decision-makers to let go of government debt, however questionable that is.

And it is entirely another thing for individual citizens to press their claims. Some U.S. investors tried to sue the Chinese government in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes it very hard for any U.S. citizen to sue a foreign government in U.S. courts because the law generally says that U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction.

The law usually only allows the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if a foreign government waives its immunity, commits a tort or seizes property. Recent additional exceptions have been added for terrorism. China lost an initial summary judgment for failing to appear in court but, with the urging of the U.S. State Department, later appeared in court and successfully argued that U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction.

Today, the Chinese bonds held by U.S. investors may be worth as much as $750 billion, according to Jonna Bianco, president of the American Bondholders Foundation, who estimates the value of bonds held by investors worldwide may be $10 trillion, including interest and penalties for default.

Bianco, who is doing media interviews on this topic, is not happy about China reneging on this debt while purchasing American banks and AMC movie theaters.

Via Special Guests:

Jonna Bianco, president and founder of the American Bondholders Foundation (ABF) says that if China is the economic superpower the world believes it is, they should now begin paying back this debt to its American bondholders and the American people. Instead, China is ignoring these obligations and buying things like banks and movie theaters on American soil.

“Is it not enough that the bulk of our manufacturing base has shifted over to China placing millions and millions of Americans out of work? Is it not enough that China continues to provide ammunitions and weaponry to our enemies that are killing American troops overseas? Is it not enough that China continues to steal our intellectual property/trade secrets/patents making knock off products that they dump around the world costing American Businesses billions and billions of dollars in losses? Is it not enough that China has continued their cyber warfare attacks against American people, businesses and the American Government? Is it not enough that China continues to manipulate its currency? Is it not enough that China continues massive unfair trade practices? Is it not enough that China continues to support the North Korean and Iranian Nuclear Programs which continue to threaten the safety and future of America? At what point will Americans say....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! No More! We must stop the double standards that China has and make them pay their bills!

It appears that both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to press this issue. That said, the American people were bilked by their own government in 2009 to the tune of $787 Billion in stimulus and now, if reports are true that the Obama administration could forgive China's debt to Americans, we could be bilked again for about the same amount.

In fact, in an email response I received from Bianco about how much we owe China vs. how much they owe us, she replied:

"China owes the U.S. including its bondholders more than we owe them by far!"

More on this subject at American Bondholders Foundation.

Is Germany now falling off the Wagon too?

When France elected far left socialist Francois Hollande as president last week, a prevailing theme was that the French are tired of austerity and want growth. That's like a fat person going to McDonald's because he/she is tired of being on a diet or a bankrupt person attempting to sign up for another credit card  because he/she is tired of paying down the debt; or the alcoholic who buys another bottle of Jack Daniels after growing tired of being sober.

It now looks like Germany, to some degree, is choosing to go down the same road.

Via Reuters:

Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives suffered a crushing defeat on Sunday in an election in Germany's most populous state, a result which could embolden the left opposition to step up its criticism of her European austerity policies.

The election in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), a western German state with a bigger population than the Netherlands and an economy the size of Turkey, was held 18 months before a national election in which Merkel is expected to fight for a third term.

She remains popular in Germany for her steady handling of the euro zone debt crisis, but the sheer scale of her party's defeat leaves her vulnerable at a time when a backlash against her insistence on fiscal discipline is building across Europe.

According to first projections, the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) won 38.8 percent of the vote and will have enough to form a stable majority with the Greens, who scored 12.2 percent.

Laws of economics are as unyielding as the laws of physics. Yet, Europe is moving toward a frame of mind that says the way to defeat gravity is to jump off a cliff.

You just can't fix stupid.

Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids

France elects Socialist President, circles the drain

There are certain truths that should be self-evident. Things like 2+2=4 and Socialism never works, for example. Don't tell that to the French, though. They've just elected a far left socialist named Francois Hollande, who apparently won, in part, by appealing to the ignorance of an economic truth that should be self-evident. A majority of France's populace got tired of austerity measures so they believed a man who promised to spend more of what the country doesn't have - money.

Via BBC:

Mr Hollande - the first Socialist to win the French presidency since Francois Mitterrand in the 1980s - gave his victory speech in his stronghold of Tulle in central France.

He said he was "proud to have been capable of giving people hope again".

He said he would push ahead with his pledge to refocus EU fiscal efforts from austerity to "growth".


"Europe is watching us, austerity can no longer be the only option," he said.

After his speech in Tulle, Mr Hollande headed to Brive airport on his way to Paris to address supporters at Place de la Bastille. His voice hoarse, he spoke of his pride at taking over the mantle of the presidency 31 years almost to the day since Socialist predecessor Francois Mitterrand was elected.

Imagine being maxed out on all of your credit cards and on the verge of bankruptcy. You go to see a credit counselor, who proceeds to put you on a painful but necessary path that will bring you out of debt. A year goes by and that painful path is wearing on you. Along comes a loan shark who says he can make everything better.

France just listened to that guy.

h/t Drudge

Video: If I wanted America to Fail

This video, courtesy of Free Market America, is in the spirit of the Paul Harvey clip from 1965 called, "If I were the Devil." FMA gets a little more specific, based on three years of Obama and nails it here.



h/t Jawa

Video: Stimulus Dollars went to foreign companies, workers

The only thing that could have made this worse is if stimulus dollars were actually sent to Korea to fund Korean businesses and workers. In this case, the dollars stayed here but were used to fund foreign companies and workers on American soil. If there's anything positive to glean from this CBS News segment by Sharyl Attkisson, it's that unions affected by the move are exposed to one of the many things wrong with the Obama administration.

The spokesman for one of the unions impacted by all of this, Mark Mangione, is representing some very angry members, many of whom likely voted for Obama.



h/t Weasel Zippers