This is the YouTube video of Ted Cruz’s response to being called Lucifer by John Boehner:
Well played, Senator Cruz.
This is the YouTube video of Ted Cruz’s response to being called Lucifer by John Boehner:
Well played, Senator Cruz.
The Daily Signal posted an article yesterday about the budget deal the House of Representatives put forth under Paul Ryan. The deal was essentially the deal that was negotiated by the previous Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
The article reports:
In October, in his effort to “clear the barn” for Ryan, then-Speaker John Boehner helped negotiate a two-year budget deal with President Barack Obama and Democrats. It raised the 2017 spending level roughly $30 billion above the total lawmakers set in 2011 to control spending.
Though the majority of Republicans did not vote for the Boehner-Obama budget deal, the new House leadership has indicated spending bills for fiscal year 2017 must abide by the higher spending level prescribed by the October agreement.
But a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projecting trillion-dollar deficit levels by 2022 appears to be persuading more than just the usual suspects to ignore the budget deal and insist on a lower spending level.
Someone considerable smarter than I am observed recently that the current difference between Democrats and (establishment) Republicans is not over the size of the federal budget, but over who controls the money. Conservative Republicans are more interested in the size of the budget and want to shrink both government and government spending. The establishment Republicans have consistently ignored the conservative base that put them in office. That is going to become a problem for the establishment Republicans in the very near future.
The article further reports:
“I can tell you that Obamacare and the spending crisis are the reasons why I came up here and the reason I voted against the omnibus [spending bill] is because we got off Paul Ryan’s path to prosperity,” Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “I will fight hard for a lower budget number, and I expect a great deal of my colleagues will do the same.”
Farenthold is referring to 2012 proposal authored by Ryan, R-Wis., when he was chairman of the House Budget Committee that reformed entitlement programs, cut taxes, and reduced spending.
While the conservative House Freedom Caucus is leading the charge to renege on the October budget deal and revert to the lower spending number set under the Budget Control Act of 2011, other GOP members also are concerned.
The Republican Study Committee, a larger group of conservative House members from which the Freedom Caucus sprang, will propose a budget that sticks to sequestration levels, its chairman says.
America cannot continue to spend money at its present rate. The deficit passed nineteen trillion dollars this week. I don’t even know how to write that number! Conservatives have been sending people to Washington since 2010 to cut spending. It is about time Washington heard their voices. If the people who are in Washington to represent us now do not represent us, we will have to send different people.
Paul Ryan took over as Speaker of the House in October. It was hoped that he would do a better job of opposing the liberal policies of President Obama than John Boehner. It seems to me that all he has accomplished is to advance the policies of the Republican establishment while ignoring the voice of the conservatives which form the base of the party. The more unhappy Republicans become with their leadership in Washington, the stronger the candidacy of Donal Trump for President becomes. As I have previously stated, I am not a Trump supporter, but I believe he represents a temper tantrum on the part of the Republican base, and the Washington Republicans keep adding fuel to the fire by not responding to that base.
My evaluation of the omnibus budget deal is based on two articles from Power Line. One is written by Paul Mirengoff about the impact of the bill on the Department of Education, and the other is written by John Hinderaker about the impact of the bill on American workers.
Mr. Mirengoff states:
I want to focus on one area that I care very much about — education. The omnibus bill apparently grants a 7 percent increase in the budget for the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
This outfit does all it can to impose the left’s agenda at the K-12 and college levels. In doing so, it often ignores the law, defining perfectly legal conduct as unlawful.
If the OCR’s resources are stretched thin, it’s because of its overreach, based on a willful misreading of the law. By increasing OCR’s budget, Congress rewards its misconduct. The budget should be slashed, not increased.
The article lists some of the recent actions of the OCR:
1. OCR’s school discipline policy has encouraged districts across the country to adopt racial quotas in discipline.
2. OCR’s guidance purports to convert ordinary incidents of schoolyard bullying into violations of federal law.
3. OCR misstates applicable law on sexual assault and harassment on campus, encourages unfair treatment for some accused students, and allows colleges and universities to abridge First Amendment rights.
These people don’t need more money–they just need to go away.
John Hinderaker deals with the impact of the bill on American workers. He quotes Senator Jeff Sessions:
The more than 2,000 page year-end funding bill contains a dramatic change to federal immigration law that would increase by as much as four-fold the number of low-wage foreign workers provided to employers under the controversial H-2B visa program, beyond what is currently allowed. These foreign workers are brought in exclusively to fill blue collar non-farm jobs in hotels, restaurants, construction, truck driving, and many other occupations sought by millions of Americans.
At a time of record immigration – with a full 83% of the electorate wanting immigration frozen or reduced – the GOP-led Congress is about to deliver Obama a four-fold increase to one of the most controversial foreign worker programs. The result? Higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans.
…The bill also funds sanctuary cities and illegal alien resettlement, allows the President to continue issuing visas to countries that refuse to repatriate violent criminal aliens, and funds the President’s ongoing lawless immigration actions – including his unimpeded 2012 executive amnesty for alien youth.
As feared, the effect is to fund the President’s entire immigration agenda.
I suspect that there are many Americans who would have been willing to endure the non-hardship of a government shutdown to avoid these two aspects of the omnibus spending bill. It really is time for new leadership in Washington. No one there (with very few exceptions) is listening to the American people who voted them into office.
The chart below from the Heritage Foundation is included in the article:
As you can see, there are no immediate spending cuts and no significant cuts until 2025. We all know what happens to budget cuts in the distant future–somehow they never materialize. There is also the matter of this Congress trying to bind a future Congress to a budget it had nothing to do with.
In an article posted yesterday, The New York Times described the deal as follows:
The deal is the policy equivalent of keeping the lights on — hardly the stuff of a bold fiscal legacy. But it achieves the main objective of his 2016 budget: to break free of the spending shackles he agreed to when he signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, an outcome, the president allowed Tuesday, that he could be “pretty happy” about.
I don’t want to see the government shut down, but this is not a compromise–iti’s a cave. This budget deal is an example of why John Boehner is being replaced as Speaker of the House.
An article at Daniel Mitchell’s website states:
Moody’s Investors Service announced Monday that, despite dire warnings from the Treasury Department, the government would find a way to pay money owed on its debt, regardless of whether lawmakers agree to raise the $18.1 trillion borrowing cap. …”Even if the debt limit is not raised, …the government will order its payment priorities to allow the Treasury to continue servicing its debt obligations,” says Moody’s Senior Vice President Steven Hess.
Raising the debt limit is not really required despite what the big spenders are telling you.
I think Senator Jeff Sessions said it best:
“Once again, a massive deal, crafted in secret, unveiled at the 11th hour, is being rushed through Congress under threat of panic. Once again, we have waited until an artificial deadline to force through that which our voters oppose.
At its core, this deal with President Obama does two things: First, it lifts federal spending caps for the next two years – including a $40 billion increase in spending on the federal bureaucracy. Second, it waives the federal debt limit through March of 2017, allowing for approximately $1.5 trillion to be added to the debt – ensuring no further conversation about our debt course or any corresponding action to alter it.
It appears this deal is built on the same principles as the Ryan-Murray budget deal from 2013. It exchanges instant increases in federal spending for distant savings, as much two decades down the road, that are likely to never materialize. It funds increased spending through increased revenues – violating a core budget principle by collecting more money to expand an already too-large federal bureaucracy. And it trades the termination of today’s spending limits for the promise of new spending limits ten years from now.
The spending caps in law today were pledged as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act agreement to lift the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. It represented a bipartisan commitment to cap spending at a fixed amount. This deal shatters that commitment by spending $80 billion more than we promised over the next 2 years.
The deal also uses a common gimmick where alleged savings in an entitlement program are used to boost unrelated spending in the federal bureaucracy. Any savings found to entitlement programs faced with insolvency must be used to shore up those programs – not to surge spending somewhere else. Yet this deal claims illusory savings from Disability Insurance and increased pension insurance fees in order to boost bureaucratic budgets. Perhaps even worse, the deal attempts to stave off the shortfall in fraud-ridden Social Security Disability by plundering from the Social Security Trust Fund for retirees. One hundred and fifty billion dollars in funds will be siphoned from Americans’ payroll retirement contributions and redirected to the mismanaged disability program….
Republicans in Congress need to vote against this budget deal.
There is a statement in the article that I really like:
In sports, if a team isn’t doing well, you fire the manager. You do this because you have to do something, and it sends a message. The fact that you can rarely blame all a team’s struggles on the manager hardly matters (which is why the Nats should fire their manager and the general manager — for giving him that sticking bullpen).
Sometimes change, in and of itself, can shake things up. Sometimes winning is as much about chemistry as it is about substance. If you like a guy personally, you’ll give him more leeway. If a guy wronged you in the past, you’ll be skeptical of him forever. Who cares if he’s no more conservative than the last guy?
As a New York Jets football fan, I can relate to that statement. However, it may be really accurate in the battle to replace John Boehner.
The odds-on favorite to be the new Speaker of the House is Kevin McCarthy, who represents a district in California. Representative McCarthy is well-spoken, handles the media well, and seems pleasant enough in dealing with the media, but he is not a conservative. The Conservative Review gives him a Liberty Score of 45 percent (hardly a passing grade). The Liberty Score® grades members of Congress on the top 50 votes over the past six years.
The Daily Signal posted an article yesterday about the possibility of Representative McCarthy as Speaker.
The article states:
If the torch is passed on to McCarthy, he will face challenges with lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum. The Wall Street Journal said, that if elected, McCarthy “would inherit a series of messy legislative problems that could require him to risk alienating colleagues before he even acclimates to the new job.”
Mulvaney said McCarthy is a “ground-up” type of leader. But that “the important question is, will things change? Will they change for the better or will we simply replace Mr. Boehner with somebody else who will do the same thing.”
Obviously, time will tell if Representative McCarthy will be any better for conservative causes than John Boehner. However, from what I have seen, Representative McCarthy will be more accessible to conservative news outlets and has a style that works better in communicating with people of all political stripes. I want to see conservative causes advanced, but I am hopeful that in the process conservatives will be able to soften our image with the American public. I firmly believe that conservative ideas are better for America, I also firmly believe that the liberal media has so totally demonized conservatives that our ideas are not being heard. I had an interesting experience at a recent high school reunion when someone who evidently had a very negative opinion of conservatives talked to me for a while and was amazed to find out that I was actually a rational person. Representative McCarthy is a very personable politician, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt before reaching a conclusion about his conservatism. Admittedly, his rating from the Conservative Review is horrible, but I think we have to go back to the “Buckley Rule.” The Buckley Rule (invented by William F. Buckley) is to support the most viable conservative candidate.
NBC News reported today that Speaker of the House John Boehner has announced that he will resign at the end of October. The announcement comes at a time when the battle between the conservative Republicans and the establishment Republicans is heating up in Washington and in some states.
Many Republican voters are disillusioned because they have voted Republican for the past two or three election cycles, and nothing has changed–we are still overspending, ObamaCare has not improved health care, in fact it has cost more and done less, and the treaty with Iran is going forward. So why did we bother to vote? A change in House leadership was needed last year, but did not happen–Boehner held on to his position.
The article reports:
An aide to Boehner said that the Ohio Republican had planned to serve only through the end of last year, but that the stunning primary loss of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor changed that calculation.
The defeat of Eric Cantor was an indication that the grass roots are not happy with the direction of the party. The establishment Republicans are no different than the Democrats in most policy areas, and the voters have figured this out. The Tea Party evolved out of that feeling, and despite reports to the contrary, has not gone away.
So where do we go from here? We can probably expect a government shutdown some time in the near future over the funding of Planned Parenthood. I don’t know how any American who has seen the undercover videos about the selling of aborted baby body parts can support the funding of Planned Parenthood, but evidently some do. The Republicans offered to give the money to community health centers that serve women, but the Democrats wouldn’t budge (possibly because of the large amount of money Planned Parenthood puts in their campaign coffers). I honestly do not know where the American public stands on Planned Parenthood, but if they support what is going on, we are in danger of losing our humanity.
This statement was released yesterday. It is an illustration of what happens when Americans pay attention and get involved. The Washington establishment Republicans were attempting to discipline the conservative wing of the party. The uproar from the grass roots resulted in a rethinking of that decision. Ordinary Americans can make a difference–they just have to speak out when they see something they believe is wrong.
Joint Statement on Meadows’ Reinstatement as Chair of Government Operations
Jun 25, 2015
| Press Release
WASHINGTON—House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) jointly issued the following statements regarding the chairmanship of the Government Operations Subcommittee.
“Last week I announced a change in the Government Operations sub-committee chairmanship. A number of people have asked me to reconsider that decision. Having spoken with Mark Meadows several times during the past week, I think we both better understand each other. I respect Mark and his approach. The discussions and candor have been healthy and productive. Ultimately, I believe we both want to do what is best for the country. Obviously I believe in Mark Meadows or I would not have appointed him to this position in the first place. It is in the best interest of the Committee to move forward together. Therefore, I have asked Mark to continue in his role as sub-committee Chairman,” said Chairman Chaffetz.
“I greatly appreciate Chairman Jason Chaffetz’ willingness to reconsider his decision, as well as my Oversight and Government Reform Committee colleagues’ support. I will continue to vote and conduct myself in accordance with my conscience, what my constituents want me to do, and what is best for the country. I look forward to continuing my work as Subcommittee Chairman of Government Operations under the leadership of the Oversight Committee Chairman. I know we are both dedicated to conducting real and meaningful oversight for the American people,” said Congressman Meadows.
The war between the conservative Republicans and the establishment Republicans has been going on for some time. It has been obvious at all levels of the party. The problem is that most of the energy in the party is coming from the conservatives, so the establishment Republicans need them. The establishment Republicans love the conservatives when it is time to put boots on the ground during the election season, but other than that, most of the establishment simply wishes that the conservatives would go away. This is very evident in Washington when elected conservatives are stymied when they try to do what the people that elected them elected them to do. Sometimes being a conservative Republican can be very frustrating. I left the Democrat party because they had no room for conservatives. I can’t leave the Republican party because there is no place for me to go.
The article reports:
Dozens of members of the House GOP’s most conservative faction plan to meet Tuesday to discuss ways to counteract the decision of House Speaker John Boehner and other leaders to seek retribution against members who vote against must-pass measures.
The House Freedom Caucus, a GOP group made up of about 40 of the most conservative members, plans to hold the discussion some time after Tuesday’s evening votes, according to lawmakers familiar with the initiative.
It’s about time.
The article explains what caused the House Freedom Caucus to go into action:
The latest punishment was handed down to Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., for voting against an important procedural resolution to advance “Fast Track” trade legislation the GOP is eager to pass. Meadows last week was stripped of his chairmanship of the House Oversight Government Operations subcommittee.
“So, Mark Meadows, a good man, a good friend, and what they did to him is exactly wrong, and there are a number of us who are fed up with it,” Jordan (Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio) said on the Laura Ingraham show. “And we are looking for ways that we can say, hey, we are going to stay with Mark and be as helpful as we possibly can.”
The first mistake the conservatives made at the beginning of the legislative session was to reelect the previous leaders. If you want serious change, it is a good idea to change leaders.
The article concludes:
Lawmakers who are being punished say the leadership is trying to force them to vote against what they believe is best for their constituents, who have flooded their offices with calls and emails in opposition to the trade legislation. Meadows and other Republicans opposed to the trade bill believe the trade bill would cede too much power to the executive branch and would facilitate trade deals that would cause U.S. job losses.
“There is no honor in bowing to a bully,” Meadows told the Examiner. “There is only fighting the good fight and whether you win or lose, I am willing to do my best to represent the people who elected me.”
It is definitely time for new Republican leadership in Congress.
Generally speaking, Congress is totally out of control. It doesn’t seem to matter whether the Democrats or Republicans are in charge, Congress is out of control.
The article explains:
Most Congressional bills are passed in a nearly empty chamber, and Massie (Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)) explained to the Young Americans for Liberty at the University of Cincinnati, members of Congress like to use voice votes to pass unpopular bills.
There’s two reasons Congress loves the voice vote: the first is that because there’s no record of who voted, they can’t be held accountable when the bill passes.
The second reason is that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has sole discretion to decide if there is a “quorum” (218 congressmen) present in the room sufficient to take a voice vote. Massie says frequently there’s only ten congressmen present. All Boehner has to do is squint and say that there’s a quorum present and he may hold a voice vote.
As long as no one requests a recorded vote, Boehner is free to do this.
Congressman Massie explains that the distance between his office and the House of Representatives floor is about 500 yards. When Speaker of the House Boehner begins a voice vote, Congressman Massie dashes down the hall and demands a recorded vote. A recorded vote requires an actual quorum. Congressman Massie’s actions have stopped some bills in their tracks. I wish we had more Congressmen willing to stand up for the American people.
On Monday, The Daily Signal reported that Federal District Court Judge Susan Dlott granted a motion to compel and ordered the IRS to produce the names of the 298 targeted organizations identified by the IRS for the Treasury Inspector General. Last week U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald Machen disclosed the Justice Department‘s decision not to charge Lois Lerner with of Congress. This latest decision at least allows the probe of wrong doing by the Internal Revenue Service to continue.
The article reports:
…the plaintiffs have been trying through the discovery process to identify all of the conservative organizations unfairly targeted by the IRS so that they can seek class certification. If they can convince Judge Dlott to certify a class, then the lawsuit would expand from the ten original plaintiffs to all of the organizations on Lois Lerner’s hit list. This would greatly expand the risks to, and potential liability of, the government.
But the IRS, in a fitting bit of irony, refused to turn over the names of the organizations whose applications were mishandled, claiming that would violate the confidentiality requirements of Section 6103.
On April 1, in what must have seemed a cruel April Fool’s joke to the Justice Department lawyers handling the case, Judge Dlott denied a protective order sought by Justice Department to prevent the IRS from being forced to turn over this information. She pointed out that Section 6103 has an exemption for tax information “directly related to an issue in” a judicial proceeding. Since the identity of all of the targeted organizations “is directly related to the issue of class certification in this federal court proceeding,” she granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
According to the article, the IRS will be forced to turn over:
There is little doubt that the Obama Administration was using the IRS to suppress free speech. Hopefully those at the root of this action will be identified and charged with the appropriate crimes.
Fox News posted an article today stating that the United States is withholding the details of the nuclear negotiations with Iran from Israel. Since Israel is the country most threatened by an Iranian nuclear weapon and since Israel is the country with the best intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program, this approach makes very little sense.
The article reports:
In extraordinary admissions that reflect increasingly strained ties between the U.S. and Israel, the White House and State Department said they were not sharing everything from the negotiations with the Israelis and complained that Israeli officials had misrepresented what they had been told in the past. Meanwhile, senior U.S. officials privately blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself for “changing the dynamic” of previously robust information-sharing by politicizing it.
The comments came as a late March deadline to forge the outline of an Iran nuclear deal looms. Netanyahu has angered the White House by his open opposition to a deal he believes threatens Israel’s existence, and by accepting a Republican invitation to address Congress about Iran in early March without consulting the White House, a breach of diplomatic protocol.
The article further reports:
Netanyahu has insisted that Iran, whose top officials have sworn to obliterate Israel, should not be allowed to enrich any uranium. The U.S. and its partners say that stance is untenable because Iran would never accept it.
As the talks have progressed, Netanyahu’s opposition to an agreement has increased over what he believes to be extreme concessions made to Iran that would leave it as a threshold nuclear weapons power and a direct threat to Israel’s existence.
The White House and State Department maintained that the U.S. will not leave Israel threatened. They also insisted that Israel has not been completely cut out of the loop and that overall security cooperation with the Jewish state remains strong.
If Iran will not accept the prohibition of enriching uranium, doesn’t anyone think there might be a reason for that? Have we not learned from what happened with North Korea (which incidentally has played a very large role in Iran’s nuclear program and nuclear talks)? Any treaty that comes out of the current negotiations with Iran is not worth the paper it is written on. President Obama heralding a treaty with Iran is very much along the lines of Neville Chamberlain declaring, “Peace for our time” after the 1938 Munich Agreement. We know how that turned out.
We have watched the dust-up about Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress in March. I posted a story yesterday explaining that the real issue here is that President Obama is trying to prevent the American public from hearing what the Prime Minister has to say. Prime Minister Netanyahu is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on terrorism and the Iranian nuclear program. Unfortunately, President Obama does not appreciate his knowledge or abilities.
Breitbart.com reported yesterday:
Just days after the Obama White House accused House Speaker John Boehner of “breaking protocol” by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, a team of up to five Obama campaign operatives has reportedly arrived in Israel to lead a campaign to defeat the Israeli Prime Minister in upcoming national elections scheduled for March 17.
The anti-Netanyahu, left wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports a group called “One Voice,” reportedly funded by American donors, is paying for the Obama campaign team. That group is reportedly being lead by Obama’s 2012 field director Jeremy Bird.
This is unbelievable.
The article reminds us of President Obama’s past action concerning elections in other countries:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel Merkel, an Obama Administration ally, was hosted at the White House prior to recent German elections. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the left wing Labor Party visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not once, but twice prior to British elections. Those were won by Conservative party leader David Cameron, who himself visited Washington last week at Obama’s invitation to lobby the U.S. Congress against adopting a new sanctions measure to help confront Iran’s burgeoning nuclear program. Oddly, that’s the very issue Obama and the mainstream media now roundly condemn John Boehner for involving himself in.
President Obama has not treated Israel well since he took office. Meddling in the Israeli elections is inexcusable.
Holly Robichaud writes a column for the Boston Herald. She posted an article today about the recent dust-up between President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boeher. President Obama is upset because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is addressing a joint session of Congress without the President’s permission. So what is the dust-up really about?
President Obama’s latest White House hissy fit is over House Speaker John Boehner’s bold move to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress. Obama claims to be upset over protocol, but that’s just spin. His real concern is on the message that Boehner and Netanyahu want to deliver to us. Their plan is to educate the public on the dangerousness of Iran’s nuclear program, that we might be at least as well informed as we now are on football psi requirements.
…Iran may claim their nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, but they have made it clear over the years they want to wipe Israel off the map. Hence, Tehran needs to know that the United States is serious about halting its nuclear program and protecting our close ally.
Obama should be embracing Netanyahu and tough sanctions, not rejecting them. If there are no repercussions for Iran developing nuclear capabilities, they won’t stop.
Obviously Obama is legacy-shopping with a determination to get any agreement with Iran. If you think the Middle East is dangerous now, just wait.
Fortunately, Boehner has recovered the president’s fumble. No one will accuse the speaker of having a Deflategate issue in this foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the media is focused on deflated footballs, hoping that we wouldn’t notice the problem with Iran until it explodes around us.
President Obama does not represent all Americans. Unfortunately, to the world, he represents America. The things President Obama does or does not do may be shrugged off at home, but they are watched closely by the people in the world who may not love America.
Breitbart.com posted an article yesterday about the signals President Obama is sending to the rest of the world. The article begins by commenting on the fact that President Obama did not attend the meeting in Paris to support free speech.
The article reports:
For the supposed leader of the free world to be a no-show was an affront to Western democracies. The Obama Administration is now in full damage control mode by admitting it made an “error.” Was it an error or deliberate?
President Obama was not alone in his Paris no-show. If the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, who is number two in line for the presidency, and the new Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell, had the political courage to stand up for freedom and democracy, they both would have been in Paris showing the world where the United States Congress stands.
It would have been nice to see some American leadership there–Congressional or otherwise.
The article further points out the many mixed messages President Obama has send about radical Islam:
For example, in his June 4, 2009 Cairo “outreach” speech to the Muslim world, he gave some insight when he stated that he considered part of his responsibility as President of the United States was to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. I don’t think such a statement is in his oath of office.
Furthermore, he signaled his support for the “Arab Spring” Islamic uprisings. Both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood understood by that signal that the United States under President Obama would not stand in their way in the revolution to come. Finally, in his September 2012 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama declared “that the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” That should have dispelled any doubt.
Under the Obama Administration, all military and civilian training manuals have been stripped of the words ‘Islamic terrorism,’ and our military and police are not getting the training they need in order to protect and defend America. Political correctness caused by the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Obama Administration will cost American lives.
The author of the article feels that the actions of President Obama are worthy of impeachment. I am not sure that would be the right answer, but I understand his logic.
The article concludes:
What more does it take to show where lie the sympathies of the Obama Administration? The continued release of hardened terrorists from Gitmo says it all. With its many other scandals and its tragic open border policies, which are unconstitutional, Congress must act to preserve and protect the country by initiating impeachment proceedings.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could easily be considered an expert on terrorism. I suspect he didn’t want to be an expert on terrorism, but events have certainly caused him to learn more than he might have wanted to learn. Prime Minister Netanyahu will be in Washington in March to attend an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference and will speak to Congress at that time. Speaker John Boehner had originally invited the Prime Minister to speak to Congress in February, but since the Prime Minister will be in Washington in March, the March date was selected. The Obama Administration is very upset that they were not consulted about the invitation and have stated that President Obama will not meet with the Prime Minister because the meeting would be too close to the Israeli elections. President Obama has accused Congress of overstepping its bounds by asking Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak.
The Times of Israel posted an article today about the conflict.
The article reports the ‘spoiled brat’ reaction of the Obama Administration:
“We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.
“There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.
Threatening our only ally in the Middle East? It is a shame that President Obama is ignoring the one country that would actually be helpful in fighting the war with Islamic terrorists.
In an interview scheduled to be on television Sunday night, Speaker Boehner commented that he was amazed that a President who is ruling by executive order and executive memorandum would accuse Congress of overstepping their bounds.
What goes around comes around.
The article reports:
As for the controversial vote against the speaker this month, he admits “it’s a difficult vote that comes with a lot of intimidation.” The chairman of the House Veterans Affairs committee, Florida Republican Rep. Jeff Miller, let Huelskamp know he was jeopardizing an expected subcommittee chairmanship by announcing his intentions to not vote for Boehner.
Defiant, Huelskamp stood resolute against the threats and pressure tactics, as leadership punished Huelskamp last Congress for voting his conscience by stripping him of two committees. For Huelskamp, the lame duck CRomnibus was among the clues that this Republican leadership was not inclined to stand up to President Obama on principle. “They weren’t going to push conservative principles. They, actually, were pushing back against conservatives!”
Right now, Washington is not listening. The only way they are going to listen is if more Americans get involved. We need to send the emails, make the phone calls, and vote out of office those politicians who do not listen. At the same time, we need to support those Senators and Representatives who are trying to do what they were elected to do. This is not the time to tune out–this is the time to get involved.
The Representatives who voted against John Boehner as Speaker of the House are facing retribution. This may be the way things are done in Washington, but I wonder if the people who voted for John Boehner consider this acceptable behavior.
Yesterday the Daily Caller reported:
Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent are both losing their seats on the House Rules Committee, Politico reported Tuesday evening. Both Florida Republicans voted for Webster instead of Boehner earlier in the day.
Asked last week if any Republicans who voted against Boehner would be punished, spokesman Michael Steel told The Daily Caller by email: “Boehner has said publicly that there will be no retribution for ‘no’ votes.”
John Boehner lied to Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) in order to get the $1.1 trillion cromnibus funding bill passed (rightwinggranny). Now John Boehner is taking action against those who voted against him after saying he wasn’t going to. It is becoming more difficult every day to remain a Republican. I know there are good men in Congress, but unfortunately their numbers are few.
This is the list of the Representatives who voted against John Boehner for Speaker of the House. These are the men who represented the voters. I have no idea who the other Representatives thought they were representing.
Republican Vote Roll Call AGAINST Boehner: –
24 & 1 voted present. This was the 1st & 2nd call.
Chris Gibson (NY) – R – nominated Kevin McCarthy
Scott Garrett (NJ) – R – nominated Webster of FL
Jeff Duncan (SC) – R – nominated Gowdy
Paul Gosar (AZ) – nominated Webster of FL
Scott DesJarlais (TN) – R nominates Jim Jordan – OH
Curt Clawson (FL) R – nominates Sen Rand Paul
Dave Brat (VA) R – nominates Jeff Duncan
Jim Bridenstine R – Nominates Gohmert
Tim Huelskamp (KS) R – votes for Webster
Walter Jones (NC) R – votes for Webster
Steve King (IA) R – votes for Webster
Tom Massie (KY) R – votes for Yoho
Mark Meadows (NC) votes for Webster
Richard Nugent (FL) R – votes for Webster
Gary Palmer (AL) R – votes for Sessions
Bill Posey (FL) R votes for Webster
Scott Rigell (VA) votes for Webster
Justin Amash – did not vote for Boehner
Rod Blum (IA) R – votes for Webster
Stutzman (IN) votes for Webster
Randy Weber (TX) votes Gohmert
Webster (FL) R votes for himself
Yoho (FL) R votes for himself
Louie Gohmert – Voted for himself
Brian Babin (TX) R – votes “present”
I am watching the House of Representatives vote on the new Speaker. I believe that as of now the conservatives missed unseating John Boehner by one vote. That is a shame. The American people asked for a change. Sixty percent of Republican and unaffiliated voters expressed disapproval with John Boehner as speaker. It is unfortunate that our representatives do not currently represent us. I am grateful to my Congressman for voting against John Boehner for Speaker.
John Hinderaker reported this morning at Power Line that Louis Gohmert has announced that he will challenge John Boehner for Speaker of the House. I have no idea if Representative Gohmert can defeat Speaker Boehner, but I sure hope he does.
The article quotes Representative Gohmert:
In 2010, Boehner and other leaders said if you put us in the majority, we will have time to read the bills. That hasn’t happened. We saw that with the cromnibus, again.
We’ll get back to appropriating and we will go through regular committee process, so every representative from both parties will have a chance to participate in the process and not have a dictator running things.
The House of Representatives is the legislative body that is supposed to represent the will of the people–all representatives have to run for election every two years. Unfortunately, in recent years, the House of Representatives has simply reflected the sort of autocratic rule that our President has exemplified. The voice of the American people has somehow been lost in the shuffle in Washington.The Republicans have been the majority in the House for a few years now, with John Boehner as Speaker. There have been no visible change from the time that Nancy Pelosi was in charge. It is time for a change in leadership.
We are about to find out if the election of 2014 meant anything at all in Washington, D.C. The election was a resounding victory for Republicans at all levels of government. It was also an expression of voter dissatisfaction with the current status quo.
Brietbart.com posted an article today pointing out that it would only take 29 conservatives to unseat John Boehner as Speaker of the House. Recent polls have shown that as many as 60 percent of Republicans would like to see John Boehner replaced as Speaker of the House.
The article reports:
At this critical juncture, the few dozen conservatives in the House have two options.
They can allow themselves and the 2014 electorate to remain disenfranchised, helplessly standing by while Boehner passes crucial legislation on amnesty, budget bills, Obamacare, and debt ceiling increases with Democrat support. Or they can seize control of their own destiny by using the first vote of this Congress – the only vote for which Boehner cannot rely on Democrat support – to veto the Speaker himself and preempt a disastrous two years of lawmaking.
Despite misinformation some Republican members and incoming freshmen have given constituents, the selection of John Boehner for Speaker, unlike the election of the other party leaders, has not been cemented. And in fact, on Tuesday, if every Republican who claims to be frustrated and even appalled by Boehner’s behavior would vote for any other name, they can deny him reelection as Speaker.
The article concludes:
By joining together and organizing a move to deny Boehner the majority, these 29 conservatives can create such an opportunity. This would force a second or third ballot and Republicans would have to reconvene a conference. They would finally be compelled to negotiate with conservatives who would only agree to give their votes for someone who commits to certain fundamental principles and ironclad concessions.
Although this is arguably not a perfect plan, as these members stand before their constituents and gratuitously utter the words “John Boehner,” they will have sealed their own fate for the next two years because they have offered no alternative plan to reestablish a modicum of conservative control over the conservative party. Those self-described conservatives who are reluctant to join this effort have an obligation to put forth other ideas for reestablishing a voice within the party.
On Tuesday, choose wisely and fear no man.
If the Democrats and the Republicans are ignoring the will of the American people, it is time to replace them both.
Holly Robichaud posted a column in the Boston Herald today about the political landscape over the next two years.
The article lists the conservative Republican presidential candidates as follows:
While Cruz is no favorite of the D.C. establishment, his political backbone in working to stop the Obama agenda will be an advantage. Unlike Speaker John Boehner, Cruz embraces November’s message that Americans overwhelmingly reject Obama’s policies, including amnesty.
Paul should be red hot due to his appeal to younger voters, but his foreign policy and amnesty positions will hold him back.
Kasich, from a key electoral state, has served in Congress and been a Fox News host. As governor he created 45,000 new jobs and fixed an $8 billion budget deficit, and he’s someone to watch.
The article also mentions the moderate Republican candidates–Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. If the number of conservative candidates split the conservative vote, one of these men could win the nomination.
The article also discusses the Democrat field:
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have to decide between being a Boehner clone — which will depress the GOP base vote in 2016 — and being a leader in fighting Obama’s destructive executive orders. If he chooses the latter, McConnell could play kingmaker in the primary.
Most Democrats understand President Obama has moved the country too far to the left, except our U.S. Sen. Lizzy Warren, who thinks the whole world is the People’s Republic of Cambridge. Ultraliberals will continue to rally around her as the rest of Democrats try to go mainstream to save the party from extinction.
If the conservative movement wants a presidential candidate in 2016, they are going to have to unite around one candidate, and during the next two years, they are going to have to show the country that they have workable ideas as to how to turn America back to the constitutional republic it was intended to be.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This is the picture of conservatives in the Republican party in recent years. Now, in 2015, we have the chance to do something different. We can take that chance or we can continue our march toward oblivion.
The article stated:
Yes, we need to pick up the flag and force Republicans in February to actually fight as they are now promising when funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires, but there is an even more important intervening event that must draw our undivided attention.
The vote on whether Rep. John Boehner will be Speaker will occur in January, and 30 conservative House members can deny him re-election. It will be an actual public vote—not a behind-the-scenes, paper ballot vote. Although many would have you believe otherwise, Boehner has not yet been elected Speaker for the new term. House Republicans elected him as their nominee for Speaker in November, but the full House of Representatives needs to vote on his nomination in January.
Amen. John Boehner may be a wonderful person to have a beer with, but he has become part of the Washington political class. He needs to be replaced as speaker.
The article reports the incident that convinced me it was time for a change:
One of the main obstacles to unseating Boehner is that House conservatives sort of like him. You hear them say, “He really is a good guy. He just has the worst job in the world.” What they do not realize is that at all times, Boehner and the entire Leadership team are looking to screw and distract conservatives. Leadership has a phrase for this—its called “member management.” It is code to themselves for outright deception towards those they lead. Most of the time they don’t get caught, but occasionally the corruption is exposed. Boehner’s team lied to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) to get his vote on the all-important procedural “rule” setting up the debate on the cromnibus. He promised to pull the cromnibus if Stutzman voted for the rule. Stutzman gave his vote, and Boehner went back on his word.
We will never have any sort of unity in the Republican party if establishment Republicans are comfortable lying to conservatives. Conservatives have a choice to make–they can either fight to bring the Republican party back to its conservative roots or they can be totally ignored. I prefer the fight.
The Daily Caller posted a story today about the delay of the Senate vote on the budget until Monday. As usual, the delay is caused by the obstructionism of Harry Reid. Unfortunately, some of the establishment Republicans are also in agreement with Senator Reid.
The article reports:
Democratic and GOP leaders in the Senate are delaying a vote on the huge 2015 government budget until Monday because they’re trying to block a floor vote on President Barack Obama’s unpopular amnesty of 12 million illegals.
The leaders may be able to avoid a direct vote on the unpopular amnesty, but they likely will be forced to vote on whether there should be a vote on blocking funds for the amnesty, and a vote on whether the amnesty is constitutional.
There are many establishment Republicans who support amnesty because it will bring low-wage workers into America and increase corporate profits. There does not seem to be a lot of concern for the Americans who will lose their jobs because of this. The Democrats support amnesty because they are looking for future Democrat voters–those receiving amnesty will eventually be granted the right to vote.
The article explains:
They’re backed up by some sympathetic GOP Senators, and by voters who paralyzed the Capitol Hill switchboard on Thursday. That’s when the House’s GOP leader. Rep. John Boehner joined with Obama to strong-arm House approval for the $1.1 trillion bill, which doesn’t include any language barring spending on Obama’s amnesty.
The amnesty reduces one major obstacle to the GOP’s very unpopular goal of adding huge numbers of foreign workers to the nation’s slack labor market. Since at least 2006, Democrats have said they will oppose business’ demand for extra foreign workers unless the foreign workers are allowed to vote in future elections.
But Obama is trying to provide work-permits for 5 million migrants by granting en-masse individual exemptions from immigration law. He’s also telling an additional 7 million illegals, plus people who overstay their work-visas, that he won’t repatriate them unless they commit major crimes or pose a national security threat.
Unsurprisingly, the amnesty is unpopular among Americans, including the voters needed by the GOP to win the 2016 presidential election.
I don’t support a third political party–what I do support is a conservative takeover of the Republican party.
The article reports:
Representative Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) accused House Republican leadership of reneging on a deal made with him to get his support on a crucial procedural vote that almost killed the $1.1 trillion cromnibus funding bill.
Stutzman was one of the last Republicans to cast his ballot in favor of a rule allowing the House to vote on the cromnibus. National Review Online reported that Stutzman backed the rule at the last minute after leadership told him that they would pull the bill, once the rule was passed, and replace it with a short-term continuing resolution favored by rank-and-file conservatives. With the last-minute help of Stutzman and outgoing representative Kerry Bentivolio (R., Mich.), leadership won the vote 214–212.
“I supported the rule because I was informed by leadership that the cromnibus was dead and a short term CR would take its place,” Stutzman said.
Admittedly, it would have been a huge black eye for the Republican leadership if the rule had not passed, but lying to fellow Congressmen is just wrong–regardless of which side of the aisle you are on. The House of Representatives passed a bad bill–it does not represent what the American people voted for. However, the people the American people voted for are not yet sworn in to Congress. Hopefully when they arrive, they will make a difference.