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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Breitbart:

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Video: Senator Lindsey Graham calls out John Boehner over Benghazi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via RCP:

Is it time to investigate John Boehner?

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

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

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

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

Like with Obamacare, Boehner is proving incapable of fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transforming Obamacare into Boehnercare

If there's one thing that's been learned about Barack Obama, it's that not only does he avoid accountability but he's actually the one personally responsible for that which he is not blamed. If there is to be an exception to that rule - known as the 'Limbaugh theorem' - it would most certainly be something with his name actually attached to it - like Obamacare.

If there is a way for Obama not to accept responsibility for Obamacare, House Speaker John Boehner seems to be doing his level best to find it. In fact, when everything goes south and Obamacare becomes the disaster anyone with a functioning mass of synapses knows it will become, Boehner will at least be partially to blame because when he had the opportunity to de-fund it, he said no.

The Kabuki dance between Boehner and Paul Ryan was ridiculously transparent. Ryan, who had no power, talked tough while Boehner, who had all the power, punted. There is no doubt that Boehner wanted to hide behind Ryan's un-passable bill to defund Obamacare as the former refused to exercise his power to de-fund by demanding such a mechanism be part of the Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the next year.

Once again, in a game of chicken, Boehner always seems to blink first.

However, this time, as much as he'd like to, he can't duck it.

Note what he says in response to the question about including an Obamacare de-funding amendment into a Continuing Resolution that only serves to put the country into more debt. Boehner's reason for not doing so? Well, his goal is to cut spending, not shut down the government.

Uh, John, if the goal is to cut spending, wouldn't shutting down the government do just that better than anything else?

Via CNS News:

Video: Mark Levin channels Leo Amery on Hannity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Daily Caller:

The Ryan Boehner two-step on Obamacare?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via CNS News:



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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Via Daily Caller:

When Communists chide their Opponents for being Intransigent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Communist Party USA.

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

Louie Gohmert Audio: 'Facelift' the only difference between Boehner and Pelosi

If it was considered an open secret before, that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has little to no respect for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), it's not anymore.

Now, it's just flat-out in the open.

During an appearance on the Dennis Miller show, Gohmert essentially said there is only one difference between Boehner and Pelosi; the latter has had a 'facelift'.

The silver lining for John Boehner? Well, Gohmert didn't accuse him of having one.

Via MediaIte:



Gohmert is beyond frustrated with Boehner, and rightfully so. His level of frustration is reminiscent of the kind British MP Leo Amery had for Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain shortly before Winston Churchill took over.

Via the Guardian, here is how Amery ended his speech on the subject in 1940:

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."

Gohmert knows what too few do or are willing to admit. Boehner is the wrong guy for these very dangerous times. He has proven to be a very weak leader.

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.

House Leadership acting like Democrats; McCarthy avoids Republican Study Committee

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

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

Via Breitbart:

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

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

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

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

Via Roll Call:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Breitbart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report: House Majority Whip responsible for Boehner's 'purge list'

There appears to be a source for Breitbart who has access to the goings-on inside House Republican leadership circles when it comes to the now infamous 'purge list' John Boehner used to oust four conservatives from the Budget and Financial Services Committees. If this source is correct, Rep. Paul Ryan's role in the purge may also be coming into clearer focus.

Via Breitbart:

A House GOP source has confirmed to Breitbart News that House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy was the one who drafted the secret criteria list House Speaker John Boehner used in his purge of conservatives from House committees.

The source, someone with inside knowledge of how Boehner conducted the purge, told Breitbart News that McCarthy crafted the list, which included a scorecard of where several conservative members stood on certain votes. According to the source, it’s unclear at this time whether McCarthy made the list of his own accord or if he did so at the request of somebody else in GOP leadership – like Boehner or House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

The source alleges that McCarthy brought the criteria list to the House GOP Steering Committee where it was used to purge four conservatives from their House committee spots.

As for Ryan, not only is he being conspicuously silent on this whole thing but he is both on the Steering Committee, which includes 31 members, and chairman of the House Budget Committee, which saw two conservatives jettisoned. Breitbart reported earlier that a GOP leadership aide originally suggested Ryan and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Financial Services Committee chairman, were responsible for the ouster of two conservatives from each committee.

However, Hensarling has been quite critical of the move while Ryan has been in stonewalling mode.

In short, this entire purge thing stinks and Ryan, who has enjoyed conservative - as well as establishment - support, is looking a bit more establishment with every development in this story.

In any case, those responsible for this purge are using the same tactics employed by the Democrats over the last four years, which they decried at every turn. Ryan was one of the most critical opponents of backroom deals when it came to Obamacare.

...and Boehner cries.

Victim of Boehner purge calls out the Speaker

As I wrote here, John Boehner's secret scorecard used for keeping track of how House Republicans vote so that leadership can mete out punishment is quite Obama-esque. In so doing, Boehner cedes quite a bit of high ground, as well as leverage. One of the conservative congressmen he booted from the Budget Committee - Rep. Justin Amash - is publicly speaking out about it.

Via Breitbart:

Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash told Breitbart News that it’s “hypocritical” for House Speaker John Boehner to criticize President Barack Obama over his administration’s lack of transparency while keeping the secret list of criteria used in his conservative purge from the American people.

“It’s always hypocritical to criticize someone else for not being transparent and then hide your own information when it’s something that should be released to the public,” Amash said in a phone interview. “This certainly is something that should be released to the public. Republican leadership was elected to represent the Republican conference. Voters throughout the country elect these Republican members. We get to choose our leadership. And we have the right to know who our leadership is. What do they stand for?”

That's exactly right. In attacking his own Party's members this way, not only does Boehner engage in blatant hypocrisy - thereby losing leverage in the transparency debate - but he risks becoming more like Obama himself.

Again, it'd sure be nice to see Boehner fight Obama as hard as he goes after his own.

Read it all. 

Before planning to oust Boehner, Conservatives should look to Texas

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

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

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

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

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

Via Tea Party 911:

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

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

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

That would be Obama-esque.

John Boehner channels Scut Farkus; Conservatives need to channel Ralphie

Barack Obama and John Boehner share one thing in common; they're both bullies. The difference is that Obama bullies Boehner and Boehner bullies conservatives in his own party. The Speaker of the House actually fights the principled members of his own party more than he fights the President. After all, they are weaker than he is.

A Bully is defined as:

a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Implied in that definition is that bullies choose not to fight people who are stronger than they are. In the case of Obama, he's not only played with Boehner like a cat plays with a ball of yarn but he has a history of acquiescing to bullies on a world stage as well. For example, Obama abstained from supporting the Green Revolution in Iran because it would have meant crossing the Mullahs. Conversely, when it came to the 'Arab Spring', not siding with the revolution would have meant crossing the Muslim Brotherhood, which is doing far more than bullying right now.

In the case of Boehner, those he bullies are conservative / Tea Party types who insist on staying true to conservative principles. As the most powerful Republican in the country today, Boehner has chosen being a bully himself instead of fighting one. Conservatives in the House are weaker people and Boehner is decided to bully them while caving to Obama's demands.

We need a Speaker who will stand up to a bully, not mimic the actions of one.

It's time for a Christmas metaphor. In this short excerpt from A Christmas Story, Boehner is represented by Scut Farkus (yellow eyes); House leadership (Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy) is represented by Grover Dill; and the bullied victims are the conservatives who are being booted off of the Budget Committees for not falling in lockstep with Boehner's rather subservient agenda:



Ever since 2010, House leadership has viewed the Tea Party - despite the latter being responsible for putting the Republican Party back in the majority that year - with disgust. Dissent among conservatives was met with derision. Now, after the election, Boehner & Company have decided it's time for payback and are using their power to bully conservative congressmen who are doing nothing other than what their constituents sent them to Washington, DC to do.

Ned Ryun has a piece at Red State that offers some hope to conservatives because it's quite doable and would only require sixteen Republican congressmen to take care of Boehner the Bully.

Basically, it's this simple:

If Speaker Boehner wants to purge independent, bold conservatives—I think it’s time he gets fired as Speaker. Not only for the purge. He has failed to effectively win negotiations with President Obama and appointed moderate committee chairs. To the public, Boehner may appear radical but in reality he proposes milquetoast policies, like the tax-hikes he proposed this week.

While the caucus has already voted in support of John Boehner as speaker of the 113th Congress, the final floor vote doesn’t happen until early January.

Everyone thinks it’s a fairytale, but the Conservative Movement is capable of firing Boehner with just 16 votes.

The House rules demand that a Speaker receive a majority—218 votes—to be elected speaker. If no nominee for speaker receives 218, the House remains speakerless—as it did during parts of the Civil War.

If 16 House Republicans were to abstain from voting for Speaker, Boehner would only receive 217 votes.

The question remains. Are there sixteen House Republicans who are fed up enough to deal with Boehner the Bully? I've written my congressman to demand he be one of them. Please do the same.

In this metaphor, Boehner - played by Scut Farkus - actually cries because conservative Republicans - played by Ralphie - actually do with Boehner what Boehner WON'T do with Obama.



It's time for conservatives to make Boehner cry for the right reasons.

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):