As If…

Dear Speaker Boehner:

There is nothing I’d like better than to keep the United States House of Representatives in *conservative* hands.

Regarding that issue, we wholeheartedly agree.

In that spirit, could you kindly resign your tenure as Speaker of the House?

Under your leadership, Obamacare is still the law of the land. Those responsible for allowing four Americans to be murdered in Benghazi are yet to be held accountable. The Constitutional abuses of the IRS scandal, the “Fast & Furious” federal gun-running scandal, and NSA scandals continue to go un-investigated, and Obama continues to be held unaccountable. Under your ‘leadership,’ the Republicans in the House of Representatives have done nothing to hold the Obama administration accountable for their overreach and malfeasance and assaults on our Constitutional liberties. You supposedly practiced brinkmanship when Obama forced a government shutdown, but then acted like you owned it, and ran with your tail between your legs. It’s been “go along to get along” ever since.

And now you want to cave and give special treatment to those scofflaws who ignore our immigration laws.

Your team put up a nice graphic on Facebook today in response to President Obama’s “I have a pen” comment, to which you replied, “We have the Constitution.”

However, as much as you hold up the Constitution and parade it around like a golden calf, you have displayed no real intention of upholding it. As your actions and inaction have clearly demonstrated, to you, the Constitution is nothing more than window-dressing in a photo-op.

Speaker Boehner, you have on many occasions taken a solemn oath and promise to uphold the Constitution.

After taking those solemn oaths, on multiple occasions, you have demonstrated that your promises are as empty as must be your conscience.

If you really believe that the Constitution must be kept in conservative hands, I call upon you to resign your office as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Whether or not your constituency in the 8th District of Ohio continues to re-elect you to as their representative in Congress is their business.

The office you hold as Speaker, however, is *our* business. You have lost the trust and confidence of those of us in the Republican Party.

You have lost the trust of the nation.

Time for you to resign, Mr. Speaker.


Leo Pusateri.Boehner

With a Measure of Disgust…

Oath of Office
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” -Oath of office for Congress.

Just words– without one iota of consideration as to what those words mean.

I’m just getting more and more nauseated every time I think of this whole damned bunch of traitors, liars, opportunists, and career criminals.

I’ve lost every iota of optimism and faith in government.

They are no longer public servants, placed in a position of trust.

They–the lot of them– are self-serving, egotistical leeches who are in it for no one but themselves.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

God have mercy on our nation, and please, drain the swamp, once and for all.

I’m so disgusted.

Wanting To Take A Swing At Someone Is Racist?


Picking up on the theme of the Lawrence O’Donnell video posted by Cluster in the previous thread, The Huffington Post accurately reported a comment made by Tagg Romney after Tuesday’s debate:

Mitt Romney’s eldest son weighed in on the second presidential debate on Wednesday, joking that the debate’s contentious nature made him want to “take a swing” at President Obama.

During an interview with North Carolina radio host Bill LuMave, Tagg Romney said that hearing the president call his father a liar made him want to “jump out of [his] seat and … rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him.”

He continued: “But you know you can’t do that because, well first because there’s a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because this is the nature of the process, they’re going to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he’s not. We signed up for it. We’ve gotta kinda sit there and take our punches and then send them right back the other way.”

A young man felt defensive of his father after seeing his father called a liar on national television, and joked that his emotional response was to “take a swing at him”. This is not a story.

Yet David Sirota, a Denver Liberal, claims it is, and has done his best to make it a story. Worse, to make it story not about a man joking about an impulse, but about an entire landscape of alleged racism.

Racism? But of course.

Sirota has a radio show in Denver, Rundown, in which he and conservative Michael Brown offer points of view from both sides of the political aisle. As the spokesman for the Left, Sirota explains that this comment could not have any foundation OTHER than racism, and on the radio show Thursday (during a segment when Brown was not there to insert a touch of sanity into the proceedings) he expounded on this at great length.

I listen to the show sometimes, and have so far found Sirota to be rational and inoffensive as he has explained his Liberal perspective on many topics. But this week he not only veered wildly from this approach to political news, he devoted about half an hour to his insistence that Tagg Romney was coming from a position of what he repeatedly called “white privilege”. He lied, and he invented wild-eyed theories about what would have happened if a black man had said this about a white candidate.

The lies: That Tagg Romney had “fantasized” about doing harm to the president, and that he had said he wanted to “punch him in the face”.

He repeated the claim that the young Romney had been “fantasizing” about this horrible act of violence, implying that Romney had engaged in an ongoing fantasy and had not just spontaneously described his frustration at watching his father attacked by using a very mild metaphor of “taking a swing at” the attacker. Sirota not only repeatedly, insistently, characterized this as a desire to engage in real violence, as a desire to inflict harm on the President, but as a “fantasy” of Romney’s.

In fleeting moments of what I can only consider inadvertent honesty, he did use the word “impulse” a couple of times, but always returned to the theme of “fantasizing” about doing harm to the President.

He also claimed that Tagg Romney had elaborated that he “wanted to punch the President in the face”.

He repeatedly identified Tagg Romney as being a major spokesman for the entire Romney campaign, trying desperately to link Mitt Romney to this overwrought portrayal of seething rage and elaborate fantasies of violence against the President. It was quite shameful.

Not content to lie about what Romney said or a wholly imagined “fantasy”, Sirota spun even more wildly into typical Leftist rhetoric, expanding this comment into an elaborate explanation and condemnation of what he called “white privilege”, going on at length about his claim that this stemmed from a callous assumption that privileged whites can say anything they want to or about black people. The convoluted effort to make this a racial matter would have been funny, if it had not been such an illustration of the toxicity of the far Left and its irrational obsession with branding everything said by a conservative as coming from a well of racial hatred.

And then Sirota elaborated even more, repeatedly claiming that if Obama had a son who made this kind of comment about a white opponent, it would result in a “race war”. He was apparently quite impressed with this phrasing, as he repeated it several times.

I originally thought to just write this rant off as a Left-leaning commentary that got out of control, but Sirota mentioned that emails were already coming in, and was quite smug about generating such opposition to this outrageous statements. And then he put them in writing, in an article in Salon.  So this was not just a Bidenesque blurting of poorly considered emotion. It is a true and accurate representation of the beliefs of a spokesman for the Left, one who identifies himself as such in his radio show bio, whose very presence on this show is as one giving the point of view of the Left.

I mention it because it is a sign that these bizarre distortions of fact into a stew of lies, accusations, and outright insanity are not limited to the fringes of Leftist lunacy, but are mainstream Left. Sirota has been a voice of moderate, rational, Leftist philosophy, and to see him fly so far off the rails, into such a detailed and emphatic racist temper tantrum, with such nasty accusations that spiraled from attacking Tagg Romney to trying to implicate his father and the whole campaign in the invented race-based issue to substituting an invented “fantasy” for a spontaneous comment to wild-eyed assertions of out-and-out “race wars” if the racial identities were reversed, made me realize how pervasive and deep-seated this vicious projection of so many vile characteristics is, and what a major component of Leftist philosophy it is.

Sirota never questioned his assumptions. He never once took a breath and examined what he had been saying and tried to sort out what was real from what had bubbled up from his own belief system and world view. He just freely intertwined his own bigotries with the simple comment by Tagg Romney, and created a whole scenario, in which the actual comment played such a minor role it was lost in the hate-based hysteria of claims of violent fantasies and race wars and white privilege.

I think the most toxic heritage of the last four years will be the creation of sanctioned hatred and racism. I believe that prior to the callous decision of the Left to create, nurture, encourage and incorporate claims of racial hatred and to apply this to every perception of every word and action of the political opposition, this kind of seething rage was limited to the lunatic fringes of the movement. But it is now so mainstream in the Left that it has become the default response to anything any conservative says, about pretty much anything. We, as a nation, can recover from economic disaster, and with the right leadership we can deal with threats from our enemies. But I think it may take generations to heal the wounds created by using race as a weapon to turn people against each other, to brand people as morally inferior, to spawn hatred and distrust and even violence.

I understand that the Left’s use of race in the despicable ways they do has the added advantage, in addition to that of Divide and Conquer, of providing to those who use it a short cut to the Higher Moral Ground—-by applying these vile characteristics to others, they can assume moral superiority, without actually DOING anything to justify it. But the harm done to the nation is frightening.

Anyone Else See A Disconnect Here?

Barack Hussein Obama:

  • Voted three times to allow a child who survived an abortion to die on a gurney.
  • Allowed the trafficking of guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords via Operation Fast and Furious, knowing they would be utilized in the commission of crimes and murders, sending hundreds of people to their deaths, including U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry.
  • Forced Catholic and other Christian institutions to violate their consciences by attempting to force them to fund birth control and abortifacients.
  • Imprisoned a Marine for speaking his mind on Facebook
  • Shut down hundreds (1000s?) of GM dealerships and put thousands out of work.
  • Prevented tens of thousands of United States workers from finding gainful employment during the worst recession since the Great Depression- by blocking the Keystone Pipeline Project.
  • Is the consummate narcissist, assigning credit to no one but himself, assigning blame to EVERYONE but himself.
Now, can you please tell me again why you think he’s a “nice guy?”

Whatever Happened to Compromise?

In the previous thread Robin Naismith Green ended a comment with the following question:

Enough blame how about some action and cooperation between the parties?

To which I responded:

Robin, the Tea Party is forcing the GOP to trend to the right at the same time that the Democrat Party has lurched violently to the left. I’m not sure how you get cooperation between such polar opposites. For example, which of the principles that guide your thinking would you be willing to compromise on? Which of our principles do you think we should compromise on. What is the ultimate goal if we both give up a little? Specifically, can you picture a country where we all get along, and how would you accomplish that when we clearly don’t want the same things. Would the ultimate compromise be to make each of us equally miserable?

And then Amazona added:

Good question. But you need to ask the right questions first. For example, the first step toward working together is agreeing on a goal. Cooperation happens when both sides agree on a goal and then only have to find ways to achieve that goal, which usually involves some give-and-take. What we are seeing, and have seen for quite some time, is goals being thrown under the bus in favor of gross and blatant demagoguery.

Example: Let’s say the Left says its goal is to feed poor children. The Right agrees, this is a worthy goal. Therefore, the next step ought to be rational discussion about how best to do this. But what happens is, the Left says there is one way to do this and only one way, their way, which happens to totally contradict the Right’s objective political philosophy, so letting the Left have its way would not be compromise, it would be capitulation.

So poor children do not get fed. BUT….the true goal of the Left is met, which was never the feeding of poor children but the demonizing of the Right, because once the Right has walked away from an entirely dogmatic and unacceptable position the Left can then trumpet its claim that the Right doesn’t care if children go hungry. And this was the intent from the get-go.

So if you truly want cooperation and true compromise, drop the either/or paradigm, and agree that the goals are shared and the only thing left is to figure out how to meet them.

We often talk about compromise.  Compromise used to be the glue that held our government together and made it work.  It was an historic compromise back in 1983 that extended the solvency of Social Security by 2 decades.  But when George Bush attempted to reform and save Social Security again early in his first term, saying publicly that EVERYTHING was on the table, compromise was nowhere to be found.  It appeared to anyone who was paying attention that for Democrats, the campaign value of being able to say that Republicans wanted to destroy Social Security was greater than actually fixing the program for future generations.

So when exactly did compromise die?  And, unless you’re living under a rock, you’d have to admit that, if it’s not dead, it’s at least in a coma.  Many on the Left cite Newt Gingrich as the single individual who banished compromise from the D.C. lexicon, and in some respects, they would be right.  But David Axelrod’s reference to Gingrich as the Godfather of Gridlock notwithstanding, Gingrich’s compromises with Bill Clinton probably accomplished more in terms of historical, meaningful legislation than any Speaker in my lifetime:

So what did Clinton and Gingrich accomplish during this era of (relatively) good feelings? Here are a few notable bills, each of which passed with broad, bipartisan majorities.

Telecommunications Act, 1996 described by the Federal Communications Commission as “the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years.” The House passed the final version of the bill by a 414-16 margin, with 236 Republicans and 178 Democrats supporting it.

Welfare reform, 1996 — a landmark bill to end cash payments and instead encourage recipients to find work. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 328-101 margin, with 230 Republicans and 98 Democrats.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 1996 — a law that allowed people to change jobs without fearing the loss of their health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, as well as provisions dealing with health information privacy. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 421-2 margin, with 227 Republicans and 193 Democrats.

Taxpayer Relief Act, 1997 — which established a child tax credit, tuition tax credits, and penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs for education expenses and first-home purchases, as well as a decrease in the capital gains tax and limitations on the estate tax. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 389-43 margin, with 225 Republicans and 164 Democrats.

Balanced Budget Act, 1997 — a bill that cut spending in order to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 346-85 margin, with 193 Republicans and 153 Democrats.

My feeling is that today’s lack of compromise is the result of two dynamics: distrust between the parties and the wide chasm that separates their respective agendas.  I’m not sure exactly when the distrust factor entered the picture (at least in terms of modern-day politics), but a good guess would be the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA).

The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, most of the president’s colleagues signed on. He disliked the tax hikes, of course, but he agreed to it as well.

You don’t have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized. After the tax bill passed, some legislators of both parties even claimed that there had been no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio.

So the question remains: how do we get compromise back?  Or maybe a better question: do we want it back?


A few days ago President Obama again called for Congress to eliminate federal subsidies for oil companies and said Congress could either stand with the big oil companies or with the American people.  This has been one of the hallmarks of his administration: posing either/or scenarios, which got me to thinking that it would make an interesting exercise for our regulars, particularly our conservative regulars.  You Progressives are welcome to play as well, but it’s going to mean that you’ll have to first admit that Obama and his fellow travelers are routinely engaged in divisive tactics.

Sharpen up your Google skills, and let’s see how long a list we can compile of instances where Obama or someone from his administration has said “we can either do A, or we can do B”.  Video links are preferable, but direct quotes from a reliable news source are also acceptable.


More on tax fairness

Tiredoflibs beat me to this topic in the previous post, but I’d like to expand on the issue of tax fairness.  Anyone who has been listening to the radio or watching any news show on TV is aware of the Left’s latest class warfare tactic.  In the last couple days we’ve heard Lefties from Al Sharpton to network news anchors ask the question, “is it fair for millionaires to pay less than Warren Buffet’s secretary who, like most average Americans pays 30% in income taxes?”  When Reverend Al asked Congressman Tim Huelskamp that question on Sharpton’s MSNBC show, the Rev simply wouldn’t accept the Congressman’s answer that his premise wasn’t true.  Talk about comedy gold.  And what’s even more pathetic is that Sharpton is delinquent on almost as much in federal taxes as Romney paid.  How is that FAIR, Al?

A little research completely refutes this new Leftist assertion that the average American pays an effective federal tax rate of 30%.  In fact, according to the IRS’ own data, 97% of Americans pay an effective federal rate of less than 13%.  And, what’s even more interesting about the IRS charts that NewsBusters links to are the demographics of “the wealthy”.  The charts show that there were (as of 2009) 235,413 Americans who had adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more who paid $177.5 billion in income taxes on taxable income of $623.538 billion.  So if we increase the tax rate on those “rich” back to the 39.6% Clinton era top marginal rate that so many of our resident Progressives have called for, it would raise an additional $23.3 billion (and that’s assuming 100% compliance) a year in federal revenue — enough to run the federal government for about 2 days.  That’s barely a rounding error, but I guess it would be fair — right?  No?  OK, how about if we DOUBLE the top marginal rate on those making over $1 million.  That would raise an amount equal to about 17.6% of the current deficit or enough to run the government for about 18 days.  I think what’s FAIR is to say that we have a SPENDING problem, not a TAXING problem.

Folks, it’s time to take the gloves off — call a spade a spade and a liar a liar.

Obama Wants the Rich To Pay Their Fair Share, But Makes No Demands on His Cabinet

Considering he appointed several TAX CHEATS this is nothing new!

36 Obama Aides Owe $833,000 in back taxes.

As we have seen time and again, they are not alone – Democrats need to look in the mirror when it comes to “paying their fair share”.

Tuesday Open Thread

Have at it.

Primaries…. in 3 WEEKS!


Yes, obAMATEUR is “serious” about border security….


Obama to slash National Guard force on border…

I wonder if the cat had to pay the Death Taxes?

Woman Leaves $13M Fortune to Pet Cat…

The libs will cater to their special interests….

Congress considers bill to censor Internet… it doesn’t matter if it is unconstitutional…

…. and everybody’s favorite uninformed talking head liberal drone …. DNC chair denies unemployment up under Obama…


‘The Americans have perhaps decided to give us this spy plane’…

OBAMA: Can we have it back, please?

You’ve Got to Be Kidding!!!!!

The shooting that took place in Fort Hood over two years ago was the worst mass murder ever to take place on an American military base.  Thirteen people died and 29 were wounded by an Islamic radical shouting “Allah Akbar” as he fired.    The shooter, Nidal Hasan, was an Army Major serving as a psychiatrist.  He is also a Muslim.  He was inspired by radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda leader in Yemen.  In fact, Hasan and Awlaki exchanged as many 20 emails, and this radical Islamic goon declared Hasan to be “a hero.”  Now Awlaki is worm food … he was killed by a U.S. drone strike.  But what about Major Nidal Hasan?

What happened at Ft. Hood was a terrorist attack.  A terrorist attack on an American military base that killed 13 people.  It was an attack carried on by a Muslim shouting praise to Allah as he shot 13 people dead.  It was an attack that was carried on under the tutelage of a radical Islamic cleric who was later targeted in our war on Islamic terror.

But what of the obAMATEUR administration?  You do remember, don’t you, that when obAMATEUR took office he told us that acts of terrorism would be referred to as “Man-caused disasters,” and that our war on terror would henceforth be referred to as our “overseas contingency operation.”  So …. What about Hasan’s attack at Ft. Hood?  Gang obAMATEUR has now informed us that this was not a terrorist attack, it was simply “WORKPLACE VIOLENCE”.

Again …. The obAMATEUR administration’s Department of Defense has, according to Sen. Susan Collins, classified the worst shooting on a military base by a Muslim in co-hoots with al Qaeda to be nothing more than WORKPLACE VIOLENCE.

Forget the word “terrorism.”  Forget the phrase Islamic terrorist.  We are talking about the Obama administration here!  This is the same administration that …

Rep. Allen West sums it up in a Tweet, “America has no Commander in Chief.”

Gotta love Allen West for accurately depicting the situation.

Imagine if some distraught individual went to an army base clinging to his bible and chanting scripture as he/she killed 13 people, then we’d have big sis Janet, saying she was justified in putting Christians on terrorist watch lists.