Thursday, March 31, 2011

A Statesman Rises: Rubio discusses our challenges

Republican leadership and any of the GOP presidential contenders, TAKE NOTE! Despite Marco Rubio’s repeated insistence that he will not run for the Top Spot in 2012, his latest WSJ op ed is PRECISELY what conservatives are looking for in their leaders: the COURAGE to say what needs to be said and act on it!

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Sen. Rubio goes on to address our generation’s challenges in an economy that isn’t growing, alongside a national debt that is, federal policies that make it harder for job creators to start and grow business, taxes that are set to rise in less than two years, with corporate taxes soon rising to the highest in the industrialized world, the endless string of rules and regulations that federal agencies torment job creators with…all of these dire issues piled on top of government’s endless spending spree with money that we don’t have! And now it’s coming down to the issue of raising the debt ceiling:

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Reagan-esque proposals! Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McConnell, other GOP committee leaders, THIS is the ONLY type of ‘negotiations’ or ‘bargaining’ that should be pursued in our current run-away government! As Sen. Rubio states, “There is still time to accomplish all this,” as legislative proposals have been introduced or passed within the 112th Congress, from Rep. Dave Camp’s simplified tax rate proposal to Sen. Rand Paul’s regulatory reduction proposal to the House’s passage of a spending plan “that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.”

Rubio continues discussing further reductions, including what many conservatives have proposed involving entitlement reform (Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Johnson come to mind):

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

He also mentions something that Reagan spoke often of: a Constitutional balanced budget amendment!

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter.

But it is the manner in which Marco Rubio ends this message that is truly inspirational, showing conservative courage that we have not witnessed for far too long in our politicians:

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

No, this is not the mere words of a young politician; this is the message of a mature Statesman! A statesman of whom I’d hope would reconsider a not-so-distant future ‘promotion’!

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The same old propaganda song and dance

They’re plan is the same as it always has been: smear anyone and anything that stands for or is associated with Principle (Republicans, conservatives, tea party, etc.) , labeling them “extremists”, even the waffling Republican leadership if Boehner and Cantor come to their senses and finally side with conservatives…”EXTREMISTS!” Now they’ve gotten marching orders from their ‘caucus’ to ramp up the propaganda. As Levin discusses, this is the same old brand of propaganda that any number of fascist regimes throughout history’s past have used…just take your pick!

‘Schmucky’ Schumer’s exposure illustrates just how comfortably overzealous the statist Democrats have become with Big Government control and command. They have no ideas of how to get this country back on track…just continue to smear the other side so that spending levels continue to rise and as much of their iron-fisted statist agenda is implemented. More and more, whether careless or purposeful, we see the subversive openly discussed. And when the Media has been thwarted for the most part, while Republican leadership seems frozen in timidity, accountability for irresponsible governance is ignored.

As previously stated, this is nothing new, particularly from the likes of Schumer. Obama’s presidency has only emboldened the statist’s drive to demean, divide, and dismantle conservative thought…and with it goes the Nation.

It’s time for Americans to snap out of this statist reality! Champions of Liberty, like Levin and an army of others, are showing us and the Republican leadership the ‘light’. Will we, and they, take the lead? Or will we, and they, fall for the same old song and dance of the propagandists?

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The ‘safe’ or Principled choice in 2012

Senator Jim DeMint was among many who spoke in Iowa this weekend at the Conservative Principles Conference, encouraging voters to get it right in this next election by choosing the most principled candidate:

“If you want to know which presidential candidate is on your side, watch what they do with the debates in Congress now.

As we’re talking about how much to cut in this continuing resolution for the balance of this year — and some propose that we cut more — see what these candidates say,” DeMint said.

“Are they taking a bold stand to challenge Republicans to keep their promises from the election?

When we talk about a balanced budget amendment, are they advocating with us or are they sitting on the sidelines?

When we’re debating whether or not to raise the debt ceiling where do these candidates stand?

If you want to know which ones are on your side, see what they say publicly over the next several months and the next year about the debates in Congress about foreign policy and intervention in Libya.”

And in questioning the presumed field, DeMint suggests that if the current crop show to be insufficient choices to inspire voters, then it might be time to welcome other candidates to enter the field:

“If no one is an immediate front-runner, I think you might see a whole new cast of Republican candidates out within the next couple of months.”

Speaking to this notion of who’s the ‘right’ candidate, Doug Ross released a great summary piece examining potential GOP presidential hopefuls that’s definitely worth a gander. Interesting how those who share a desire for principled leadership, returning to a constitutional rule of law, seem to gravitate towards Rubio, West, Palin, Bachmann, Bolton, Santorum, Cain; yet those who fear a principled adherence to conservatism, choosing to describe this notion as “extreme”, “unelectable” or “fringe”, desire to stay in the realm of the supposed ‘safe’ candidates, deemed “acceptable” and “electable”, regardless of their checked conservative resumes (Romney, Barbour, Pawlenty, Gengrich, Daniels, Christie, Huckabee, Huntsman).

One thing for EVERYONE to realize: It is the MEDIA and the ESTABLISHMENT who've determined for the People that individuals like DeMint or Bachmann or Palin or any other principled conservative are "unelectable and unacceptable". Why should I believe that these principled conservatives are far more "extreme" than the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, or pretty much the entire hoard of Democrat statists in Congress? They're not. I am to believe that the American People are more afraid of principled conservatives who are capable of actually making decisions that could get us back on a prosperous track, than establishment neo-statists in the Republican ranks, as our current House leadership is turning out to be, who enable the Democrat statists by not being able to stand on any manner of principle nor capable of out-strategizing their political opponents? Common sense tells me otherwise. Given this same rationale, there's absolutely no reason why Barack Obama should be sitting in the Oval Office right now?! His presidency is about nothing BUT shear reckless ideology; nevertheless, he's there. The fact that his extremism proved to be neither 'unelectable' nor 'unacceptable' to the majority of Americans is enough to see the faultiness of this rationale. Why must limitations, submissions and ‘perfection’ be applied to some of the brightest and most hopeful conservatives among Republican ranks? Because the Media and the Establishment has led too many to believe so? Neither of these entities are FOR us, and the sooner people realize that, the better.

This isn't "personal ideology" or “demagoguery” that the above mentioned conservatives is CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE, in which opinions and decisions are based on! If Americans in mass are going to continue to take the liberal media 'bait' and allow their perceptions to rule the day by viewing principled conservatism as "extreme", "unelectable and unacceptable", or somehow more dangerous than the current brand of statism (and neo-statism) running our country into oblivion...then we're already doomed to far worse than another term of Obama's degradation. PRINCIPLED CONSERVATISM is the ONLY thing that can save this Nation from the abyss!

I say these things with my face pressed firmly against the bosom of reality, for we not only have our future to think about, but perhaps more importantly, we have our future generations to think about. Therefore, EVERYTHING about the vitality of this Nation is 'personal'. So, should we go with Gengrich or Romney or Huckabee or Pawlenty or Daniels or Barbour...or should we just go ahead and pull the lever for Obama? Rest assured, both actions will produce similar results.

Some would like to make the argument that asking for principled ‘purity’ is over-burdensome and would require ALL of what one side wants at the complete expense of the other half of the nation. I know of NO conservative fruition EVER to have been received, nor do I believe this can be a real expectation. My disagreement lies with those who hold such a notions that conservative principles are "extreme" or "divisive" or need not apply over those of us who demand principled governance, when the same is NEVER asked of, nor expected from, the liberal. Liberalism divides on all fronts; conservatism strives to unite under the Rule of Law (not to be plundered by the Rule of Men). Are ANY of our candidates 'perfect'? Who pray tell is? No one…not even Reagan, who is definitely our most contemporary 'gold standard'. But what we should be looking for in a candidate is the LEAST imperfect individual to nominate. Not even George Washington could live up to the notion of an "anti-partisan” in the White House; because for one, such simply does not exist based on the inherent partisan characteristics of politics. But also, an “anti-partisan” by today’s standards translates into a “moderate”…no George Washington! If there is no principle to rest ones decisions upon, then we end up with what's already in power. Despotism on either side does us no good, but let it not be said that conservative principle is what leads to that, for moderation has shown us otherwise thus far.

We would do wise to heed Sen. DeMint’s cautious words of encouragement. We can and WILL win with conservative principles on our side, unquestionably. The People, the Nation, yearn for principled leadership!

hat tip: Bridget Blueskye

Monday, March 28, 2011

The Answer on Libya

The question “Why are we in Libya?” might finally be answered...

Sec. Gates was for the most part correct when he told Jake Tapper that Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States,” however, things begin to get a little muddy when he decided to tow Hillary’s line, “but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake.” Umm, there’s one key factor left out of that fragmented analysis…and it’s not about the ‘general humanitarian question’ that Hillary or Barry would lead us to believe. As Rush informed today: “This chart shows every energy and oil installation in Libya, offshore and on. Every one of them is a European-owned entity. This is no more a humanitarian mission than a mission to save the animals and the pets of Libya. This is about European energy, pure and simple.”


There’s no vital U.S. ‘oil’ interest in sending troops into Libya, but as this map illustrates, there are absolutely vital European energy investments throughout Libya, and our global citizen-in-chief has seized on this.  So before liberals begin screaming, “blood for OIL!” they should ask themselves, “whose oil?” The Obama administration has gotten us involved in a ‘war’ for European oil; yet when it comes to OUR oil supplies, well…this administration says leave it in the ground! And how about that ‘financial aid’ to Brazil in the first year of Obama’s reign? Yep...oil for thee, but not for me…or you! I’m sure we can survive on wind and solar alone, right? No answers from Big Government, and don't bank on Obama mentioning this in his address to the nation.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Lay of the Land towards 2012 (part 3)


Exciting news about two of my favorites! As the year rolls on, it appears that rumblings from the most conservative branches of the Republican Party are a stirrin’. GREAT! First up, we received a report from the Minnesota Post earlier this week that appears to show Michele Bachmann edging closer to a confirmed bid:

Michele Bachmann will form an exploratory committee to run for president by June, and possibly earlier if she needs to in order to participate in presidential debates, according to a report out this morning from CNN.

"She's been telling everyone early summer," the source told CNN regarding Bachmann's planned June filing and announcement. But the source said that nothing is static.

"If you [debate sponsors] come to us and say, 'To be in our debates, you have to have an exploratory committee,' then we'll say, 'Okay, fine...I'll go file the forms.'”

Bachmann staffers did not immediately confirm or deny the report. In a statement response to MinnPost, spokesman Doug Sachtleben said "the Congresswoman is grateful for all the encouragement she’s received. She will make a decision about 2012 this summer. There is a natural timeline to these events and they will run their course."

Then lo and behold, on Saturday she took what appears to be the closest step thus far towards an ‘unofficial’ announcement:

The Minnesota Congresswoman told an enthusiastic crowd at Iowa Rep. Steve King's "Conservative Principles" Rally "I'm in" for a possible presidential run in 2012.

A CNN report recounted that Bachmann told a receptive crowd that she was "confident in 2012," that America had a strong foundation upon which to build. She then asked if the crowd was "in" as well.

"And so America has decided they're in for 2012, and so that's my question for you here today in Iowa. Are you in? Are you in for 2012? Are you in? Are you going to make it happen? Are we going to take our country back?"

As the crowd roared their approval, she continued, "I agree with you! I say we do, I'm in, you're in, we will take this back in 2012."

And if that’s not enough, the anticipation mounts as to whether our next potential ‘candidate’ will take the plunge towards 2012. Last week, Allen West announced his formation of the federal “Guardian Leadership PAC.” This is exciting news that shows West is ready and willing to go national with what should be the ONLY ‘brand’ of conservatism:

It could be a sign that West is looking at nationalizing his brand. He is one of the most popular Republicans in Washington and among the Tea Party across the country.

Not to mention that he raised over $6.4 million for his campaign for House in FL-22 last year. So there is no question that he could raise a pretty good amount of money and help the conservative cause to move forward.

According to West’s spokesman, the Guardian Leadership PAC is to support other conservative candidates across the country.

Whether Allen West is aligning himself as the next DeMint-style conservative ‘kingmaker’ or whether he makes a bid for the White House (PLEASE!!), one thing is for certain: Allen West is sure to play a more significant role on the national stage through 2012.

And before anyone wants to count either of these candidates out (yes, they are “serious” ones, Mr. Krauthammer and Mr. Will), as well as a host of other potential ‘long shots’, one should take note of the fact that for the first time in decades the Republican Convention is without a stalwart frontrunner, which could mean that many delegates are going into this one undecided! Liberals see this as a weakness for the GOP, but conservatives see this as HOPE for a better candidate than the “the establishment favorite” or “the contender who had finished second in the previous round of primaries,” who can solidly and properly challenge and defeat Barack Obama, as only a principled conservative can.

(part 2)
(part 1)

ADDENDUM:  There may have been seemingly mixed messages at the Iowa forum of potential Republican presidential candidates this weekend, but one message was clear:

"Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism," thundered Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, bringing the crowd at the Conservative Principles Conference to its feet.

Right on, right on!

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Our misguided 'one'

Domestically, Obama wages one statist battle after another; abroad, we’re witnessing his affinity for agitation as well. From Tunisia to Libya and everything in between, it seems as if Obama cares more about working from a foreign perspective for the Muslim World, picking and choosing who should maintain power and who should be toppled, instead of maintaining a U.S. perspective of what’s best for American interests, our security and our own internal struggles. Instead of dealing with dire economic concerns and increased joblessness at home, Obama seems to be more concerned with dismantling the Mubarak regime in Egypt and now Qaddafi in Libya abroad, of course, without getting his hands bloody. But what for? Rather than contemplate the ‘oil’ scenario we always hear from the choir, might we look at this a bit differently? Is there any coincidence that in both Egypt and Libya, there’s an opportunity to bargain with America’s enemies (the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda) over influential stakes in their own countries’ governments? We’ve seen Hamas become the ruling faction of the Palestinians and Hezbollah become a majority in Lebanon politics. Is this appeasement for perceived transgressions? Something to ponder about our misguided ‘one’.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Libya, libs and Obama via the Maha Rushi...

Satire from the morning update:

And driving the point home yesterday, Rush's guys produced a fantastic piece illustrating the Great Presidential War Announcements in U.S. History (the audible impact is so much more, and I will post it once released!):

RUSH: Here's a sampling of American presidents soberly informing and explaining to the American people how and why they have decided to send Americans into harm's way.

ROOSEVELT: December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy.

REAGAN: At seven o'clock this evening Eastern Time air and naval forces of the United States launched a series of strikes against the headquarters, terrorist facilities, and military assets that support Moammar Khadafy's subversive activities.

BUSH 41: Just two hours ago allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait.

CLINTON: Our mission will be limited, focused, and under the command of an American general.

BUSH 43: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.

OBAMA: Hello, Rio de Janeiro! Alo! Cidade! Maravilhoso!

RUSH: American presidential war announcements, great American presidential war announcements in American history. (interruption) What was that? That was cold? No, no. Here, Ed, play it again. I realize that snuck up on people.

ROOSEVELT: December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy.

REAGAN: At seven o'clock this evening Eastern Time air and naval forces of the United States launched a series of strikes against the headquarters, terrorist facilities, and military assets that support Moammar Khadafy's subversive activities.

BUSH 41: Just two hours ago allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait.

CLINTON: Our mission will be limited, focused, and under the command of an American general.

BUSH 43: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.

OBAMA: Hello, Rio de Janeiro! Alo! Cidade! Maravilhoso!

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Obama's hollow leadership (UPDATE)

Questions arise as to what precise objective the Obama administration hopes to achieve with its action launched against Qaddafi in Libya this weekend.

As Victor Davis Hanson analyses, “When the mission in Libya and its methods are not clearly stated and the leadership role of the U.S. is not defined, then the ambiguities and paradoxes simply mount.” What has Obama coherently said we’re supposed to be doing in Libya? I’m not convinced that he even knows…and we hate to distract him on the family’s tour of South America. However, it was a cordial gesture to notify Congress of his Libyan action two days after its launch! You know, when reflecting on this type of unconventional executive action, one might question how coincidental it is that he’s touring South America, huh? Perhaps fate.

Throughout all of Obama’s feckless sound bytes transmitted over the vacation airwaves, the mission of the Libyan action and America’s role remain unclear. So, let’s allow an opportunity to observe a thoughtful and appropriate way to ‘engage’:

The stark contrast of true leadership in Reagan to the leaderless-ness of Obama could not be clearer.

Obama has run head first into this action, knowing full well that he never intended for the U.S. to take its precedented leading role, and instead relies on others to handle it. The man is incapable of understanding that despite the constant insults lobbed at this Nation, it is the U.S. that the rest of the world consistently looks towards for decisive leadership in such matters. But as Hanson concludes:

“Instead, we ignore congressional approval, broadcast to our enemies all sorts of self-imposed limitations on our use of force, have not defined the mission as the removal of Qaddafi, on day three are promising less rather than more military force, have no clue what is to replace him, and seem uncomfortable with a leadership role that would define victory and take the necessary measures to achieve it.

Under those conditions, I am afraid this president has no business putting U.S. forces in harm’s way when he not only has not answered these questions, but apparently has never considered them.”

Through hollow leadership, we have been committed to, as one journalist puts it, a “Coalition of the Leaderless.” This is no way to go into any conflict, whether militarily, executively, economically, socially, or otherwise; yet we continue to see this administration involve itself in unclear pursuits with blinders fully obstructing and ready to pawn off the reigns of responsibility.

UPDATE:  How's this for a conflict and in one sentence: "The White House suggested Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power."  So, from peacekeepers to regime changers, without removing Qaddafi? (pardon the multiple spellings of his name)  The only way a regime change could take place is to remove Qaddafi; but if the rebel forces that are fighting him are reportedly aligned with Al-Qaeda, then do we really want to 'help' them?  More and more, this seems to be a situation that we should not be involved in without a clear mission and proper notification given to Congress.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Obamacare: one year later

Yes, today is the ‘passage’ anniversary of the dreaded bill that statist policy-makers pursued for decades. And still, the people remain opposed to this unconstitutional power play. A piece in the Weekly Standard elaborates on the laws unpopularity in the face of Democrat leaders’ fawning:

“One year ago today, the then-Democratic House of Representatives openly disregarded the cool and deliberate sense of the people and rammed Obamacare down the American people’s throats. At the time, the Democrats claimed that their bill would become more popular once Americans found out what was in it (a process that, as Democrats explained, required passing it). A year later, polls show that Obamacare’s popularity has declined even further.”

This article goes on to cover several different polls to illustrate Obamacare’s unpopularity with both Democrats and Republicans. In analyzing the continuous Rasmussen poll since Obamacare’s passage, the Standard points out “The biggest condemnation of all, across 53 consecutive Rasmussen polls, beginning the day that the president signed Obamacare into law and proceeding to today, is that Americans have supported repeal in all 53 of them…”

There are multiple factors driving its unpopularity, but in a time of economic uncertainty, Americans for Tax Reform makes the case that perhaps the ‘silent killer’ in the room is the burdensome issue of higher taxes:

“One year ago this week, Obamacare was signed into law by President Obama. This jobs-killing law will certainly wreck America’s healthcare system, but what many don’t know is that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history. Obamacare contains 21 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses—seven of which fall on families making less than $250,000 per year (in direct violation of President Obama’s campaign promise).”

Surprise, surprise.

Republicans should use every tool at their disposal, including changing procedural rules when the opportunity arises (as Democrats took), to defund every aspect of this lawlessness, until a sensible administration is ready to return healthcare and other industries to the free market.

Republicans: STOP listening to the sycophants!

Steve McCann writes a great piece at the American Thinker that should be read by all Republicans, particularly our politicians, and especially our leadership! To cut to the chase, here’s the revelation of the entire piece:

“It is beyond time for the Republicans and conservatives in Washington, whether in elected or other positions, to stop paying attention to and being intimidated by the media and understand who they are, their motives and their lack of ingenuity or cogent arguments. The mainstream media has lost its clout and the respect of the American people. These people cannot be reasoned with, and they will never show any respect for conservative views or individual reputations, as their only and real interest is their personal well-being and self-aggrandizement.

The United States is about to cross the threshold that will determine its future for better or worse. The election on November 6, 2012 will be the most important in the nation's history. The election must be won by those who truly have the long-term interest of the country at heart. That begins by not falling prey to well-worn and threadbare tactics of the Left and their sycophants in the mainstream media.”


Reagan, Bush, and ‘conservatism’

An intriguing (and extensive) debate has arisen between Mark Levin and Pete Wehner on who the more principled conservative was between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Now, for most reading this, you'd think this one would be a no-brainer, but this debate does more than just compare, contrast and ‘one-up’. This debate cuts to the core of the battle that's ensuing within the Republican Party right now between the Establishment and the Principled, and in turn, clarifies what it means to be ‘conservative’.

Before delving into this, here’s some background info on both men to give you a better perspective of where these guys are coming from. As everyone knows, Mark Levin is a popular conservative talk radio host and author, as well as president of Landmark Legal Foundation. However, Mark also served in the Reagan administration as advisor to several members of President Reagan’s Cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; he also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary education at the Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. Pete Wehner is an author, writer and commentator, who served in the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations prior to becoming deputy director of speechwriting for President George W. Bush. Wehner is the former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. Prior to joining the Bush 43 Administration, Wehner served as a special assistant to the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under his father’s administration, and before that, as a speechwriter for then-Secretary of Education Bill Bennett (Reagan Administration). So now that you know a bit more about these guys, let’s proceed…

Jeffrey Lord has so profoundly commented on this debate, addressing the different perspectives that each held on the ‘civility’ or ‘courtesy’ in governance, pointing out that “Reagan was the first conservative president since Calvin Coolidge to sit in the Oval Office. And certainly the first post-New Deal conservative to hold the presidency….Republican predecessors Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all having been moderates on the job.” Yet, we see Bush, as well as the elder, slip back into that ‘Republican Eastern Establishment’, in which that mindset of comity was key. Whereas, “Reagan, to his everlasting credit, spent his entire political career politely but forcefully opposing this idea of comity-as-government.” In the Bush administrations, particularly Bush 43, we see not only an adherence to ‘comity-as-government’, but a severely damaging silent consent given to those principles behind the progressive movement and the New Deal. Lord concludes:

“But the underlying difference between Reagan and Bush -- and indeed between Reagan and some putative GOP successors in the 2012 elections -- was (and is) a fundamental understanding of conservatism. And a refusal to buy into the idea that comity meant going along to get along.

In some respects that simply should not have happened in a Republican post-Reagan presidency, the Bush White House seemed to not quite understand that a dime store New Deal was even more expensive then when the likes of Tom Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller were pushing it.

There is a reason Mark Levin sees Reagan as the gold standard for conservatives.

And he's right in doing so.”

Indeed. I don’t recall “going along to get along” ever being a new mantra for conservatism; yet, we see this resurgence throughout too many Republicans today. This reminds me of what Levin accurately describes in Liberty and Tyranny:

“This is not the way of the Conservative; it is the way of the neo-Statist – subservient to a “reality” created by the Statist rather than the reality of unalienable rights granted by the Creator.”

Sources: Wikipedia, EPPC

Friday, March 18, 2011

Legal Plunder on full display in Wisconsin

“When the law is used to plunder, what does the law become? And when you try to use the law to defend yourself, it is used against you.” ~ Mark Levin speaking of Frederic Bastiat’s view on legal plunder

After the hard fought battle of Wisconsin Republicans to curb collective bargaining privileges for public employees was won in the legislature, and Gov. Scott Walker signed the bill into law, the Democrat Sec. of State Doug La Follette delayed publishing the law until March 25th…only to give activist Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi the opportunity to issue a temporary restraining order, barring the publication of the new law. You are witnessing legal plunder in action, folks!

This judge placates the critics of the bill by pointing to complaints that the Senate violated the open meetings law. Rush had something to say about this today:

“I've consulted with some legal experts that I know to try to explain what happened here in Wisconsin. Here's the best guess in the form of analysis right now. This judge, Judge Sumi, a county judge, issued a temporary restraining order against the Wisconsin law. The purported justification is to consider whether the procedure by which it was passed violated the state's open meetings law. So the judge said there's a question as to whether or not this happened legally, so we're gonna stop the law. We're gonna put a temporary stay on this law while we look and see whether or not it happened legally.”

Umm, why wasn’t this same action taken immediately after Congress rammed Obamacare down our throats? And wasn’t Judge Vinson’s ruling even a stronger reaction against the Obamacare legislation, that was by the way ignored by the administration? Stay for thee, but not for me, I guess? Rush continues:

“It turns out that they got procedural advice from the state Senate's chief clerk (who is said not be a partisan guy, has worked for both parties) and the state Senate, Wisconsin state senate's chief clerk laid out the rules for passage of the law -- which, after laying out those rules, the Republican senators complied with. Now, to us acts of the legislature are presumptively valid.”

That’s right folks, the Parliamentarian gave the Senate the green light to proceed. Furthermore:

“This judge, Judge Sumi, liberal activist judge, is wrong. From the rules of the Wisconsin Senate: "Senate Rule 93. Special, extended or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special, extended or extraordinary session, the rules of the senate adopted for the regular session shall, with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor," blah, blah, blah. "No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required ... and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published," if the Senate is in special session. It was in special session. No notice was required. Right there in Wisconsin Senate Rule number 93. So in layman's terms, Senate Rule 93, state of Wisconsin clearly state no notice has to be given during a special or extraordinary committee hearing.

Even so, the Democrats were e-mailed about the hearing. It was posted on the Senate bulletin board. They were advised. As I mentioned to you, the chief clerk, the state Senate chief clerk, who's not a partisan guy, worked for both parties, laid out the rules for passage to the governor. "Okay, here's what you gotta do, you have a special session, this, this, this, and this," and that's what they did. They did this, this, and this. They followed the law. They followed Senate rules. Rule 93 Wisconsin Senate clearly states no notice has to be given during a special or extraordinary committee hearing. The Democrats were e-mailed about the hearing. It was posted on the bulletin board. Essentially this judge is saying the open meeting law was violated. It wasn't. No rule was broken. So once again, put a boulder in the road, but the rule is clear, state law is clear, a judge has interceded and given the way things are with liberals on courts we don't know how this is gonna end up even though we know full well all is bogus, everything about this suit, everything about the temporary restraining order, it is a hundred percent bogus.”

There it is. The specific rule in question was abided by, yet because this didn’t end the way the Democrats wanted, they sought out an activist judge who’d give them their restraining order in hopes of bogging down the new law’s implementation, and hopefully defeat it. The liberal way: if you lose the legislative battle, you can count on the liberal court option.  They never relent!

By the way folks, this is the same Wisconsin judge who back in February during the heat of the Madison chaos, refused the school district's request to send the teachers back to work, even though state law prohibits teachers (state union workers) from striking. That should give you a better idea of what kind of judge we’re dealing with. But even so, this lady is a county judge. A county judge in Wisconsin can tell the Wisconsin legislature how to do its job?!

This stinks some kind of rotten!

William Jacobson of the Legal Insurrection blog suggests that this ruling is ‘profoundly weak’:

“The standard for a TRO requires a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that a balancing of the equities supports granting the injunction. Some courts also consider whether granting the TRO will harm the public interest, but where the state is the party, this test really is subsumed in the balancing of the equities test.

It is hard to see how there is a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly if the Judge found no clear violation of any law or Senate Rule, but merely some vague conception of "public policy." The Senate clerk already has stated that the procedures used complied with the Senate Rules, and Courts normally do not interfere in a legislative branch's interpretation of its own rules. And let's keep in mind, that no amount of notice would have made a difference, because every single Democratic Senator had fled to Illinois and was refusing to attend any votes.

As to irreparable harm, and a balancing of the equities, there was no substantive deprivation of rights. Rather, there was at most a procedural error (even that is not clear). It is hard to see how there would be irreparable harm when the law simply could be passed, as is, if noticed for vote next week.

I assume that the state will seek an immediate appeal to overturn the injunction. But should the state fail to get it overturned immediately, the legislature simply should re-vote, with more notice. Either the Democrats will run away again, or they will show up. Either way, the result is the same -- the law passes.”

The bigger picture of this whole fiasco points to the hypocrisy of the Democrats, which is what I was alluding to when mentioning Obamacare earlier. If it’s a Democrat piece of legislation, well then it has to be immediately funded and implemented, unquestionably. If you question it, you’re an ‘extremist’! If it’s a Republican-passed law, then it must be questioned, scrutinized, and held up in court until the liberal powers that be determine that it should be thrown into File 13. WTF Wisconsin?!  WI Republicans, please keep up the vigilance that you showed us before to maneuver past this liberal obstacle (perhaps teaching the old dogs leading Washington Republicans some new tricks)!

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Where's Obama? (UPDATE)

During another CR passage, and the ensuing budget debate, Obama has been recognizably absent (leaving Biden in charge, who was also out…on a five-day swing through Russia!). And now as the world trudges through the chaos of the Japanese earthquake and impending nuclear crisis, Libya in turmoil, and slumps in both stock and housing markets, Obama goes on ESPN to make his bracket selections for the NCAA Championships? WTF?! It cannot be more apparent that Obama’s lack of leadership stems from his lack of engagement, his disconnect, in the urgent issues and emergencies occurring worldwide.

Addressing the audio montage in an earlier segment, Rush stated:

That's the best way we could illustrate what's going on here. We've got literal worldwide emergencies and in the past the United States was involved in these things, as a decision-maker, as a problem solver, as at least a nation that offered assistance. Now, while it's all going on, our esteemed leader spent 30 minutes taping his bracket selections for the NCAA basketball tournament. Now, to be fair, ladies and gentlemen, just to show you that we will bend over forwards to be fair, in the ESPN segment where Obama made his picks, he does mention that people should go to a government website to find out about what's happening in Japan before they fill out their brackets. How big of him. I kid you not. Yes, even Brian is shaking his head at that one. So here you are, we're watching ESPN, you're excited because The One, The Messiah, Pharaoh Obama will soon be making his bracket picks. But instead he has to perform a public service.

So speaking directly to the ESPN audience, he says, (paraphrase) "Go to my website to find out what's happening in Japan before you fill out your bracket picks, otherwise you probably would never hear anything about what's going on over there, only if you go to my website." So, obviously, he heard the criticism, and in order to try to recapture some credibility he told the ESPN audience to go to his website to learn what's going on in Japan before filling out the bracket picks. (laughing) We are living through this. And it's starting, they're just small little ripples, the media and some of the people on the Democrat side are now beginning to -- I mean this is not at all what they expected. You know, go back to 2007, 2008, this guy, you remember, was the end-all. There had never, ever been anybody in American politics like Barack Obama. We were to be treated, we were in store for a politics unlike the world had ever seen before. Problems to be solved practically overnight, in the midst of great goodwill and love and karma and we had people falling all over themselves talking about the greatness embodied in this. Why, folks, the Nobel people, they're jokes anyway, they gave him a Peace Prize on the come. It's never happened. They gave a Peace Prize because they thought his ascension to leader of the regime would bring peace around the world. Look at what is happening.

As one caller on another radio show described, Obama is the ‘Charlie Sheen’ of Presidents! He lives in his own reality, surrounded by ‘yes men’, and only sees the world in ‘Obamavision’. Clever description of our ‘warlock’-in-chief. Now to be fair, he’s always been a little Hollywood bizarre…Charlie Sheen, that is. But I digress…

Food and gas prices are on the rise, but…It’s All Good, because Obama is President!

To top it off, Jay Carney, White House press secretary, informed WH correspondents that through all the troublesome issues here and abroad, the Obama’s are still on schedule to take their vacation in Rio! Must be nice to be king…but not one of those rich people we’re supposed to hate, of course not! I wonder if he’d be so nonchalant about how disconnected and neglectful this appears if he knew he faced stiffer competition in 2012? Just a thought…

UPDATE: On Friday, Obama announced that he's going to Ireland in May!

Single Payer Control: they've told us all along

Remember when Dingell told us this?

Now compare that to what Conyers just told CNS News earlier this week:

To the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate: Can you now see why defunding such a statist-driven agenda is so dire?! When you enable and lack the principled courage to confront, it probably is pretty difficult to see…

Reflecting on Real Leadership

I realize that I’ve had a lot of Levin referenced lately (primarily due to the fact that he’s focused so intently on the congressional situation at hand); and for some, I might be driving the message of a weak Republican leadership into the ground. But…if you care about first principles, and are sickened by how ‘our side’ is constantly drifting from them, away from constitutional conservatism, while mindlessly being played by the Left, the reasoning for this emphasis should be quite clear. When our ‘leaders’ attack US with more intensity and animosity for disagreeing with their soft tactics and missed opportunities, rather than what we’ve yet to see of any significant challenge to the socialist policies of the Democrat Party, it is time for REAL leadership to step forward in the Republican ranks! As inspiration for the freshman class, who find themselves under the thumbs of the statist enablers that road into leadership positions on November’s wave, as well as those of US, who grow weary of the betrayal, remember these conservative figures of strength and resilience, and let them embolden our vigilance...

Aside from ‘the Great One’ himself as a source of inspiration, Levin devoted Wednesday’s monologue to the reading of Reagan’s 1977 CPAC speech entitled “The New Republican Party” and elaborated on conservatism, as well as its significant majority. From the show:

Conservatives believe in the Constitution, liberty and the principles of freedom and prosperity - what is so wrong with that? Why is the GOP Leadership calling out the Congressmen who voted against the Continuing Resolution as being extreme? The Left now knows that Speaker Boehner is weak and they will use this against him as they try to further implement their agenda.

And here are some relative excerpts from Reagan’s speech:

Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves "conservative" are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way -- this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great.

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right -- those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem. They should be discussed in human terms.

Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led to a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don't have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of clich├ęs and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.

Please read the rest before, in between and after these passages. However, I wanted to point these out in particular to illustrate that the same crap was being mucked through into the 70’s and 80’s, yet we managed to straighten out the party then, and we must be resolute to do so again.

It will not only take an adherence to principled politics, but as Reagan expressed, and also as the following clip of Margaret Thatcher illustrates, the ability to effectively articulate conservative principles and the will to stand proudly on them to defend against the forces that would tear the liberties of a nation down!

See, it is not ‘extreme’ to stand on principle, to follow the Constitution, to have a moral compass, or to be unwavering and decisive. Quite the contrary, the extremities lie in the unwillingness to act principally when necessary. And when a nation is physically hemorrhaging from debt of not only economic origins, but of both moral and social degradation as well, NOW is ALWAYS the time to act decisively.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

The Establishment doesn’t dance with the Base

If only the GOP establishment could show its fangs and strike out against the liberals like they attack their own…

FACT: The tea party movement and likeminded conservatives gave the Republicans the House in November. (any individuals wanting to dispute this FACT are only fooling themselves into believing otherwise)

So, why berate “the ones who brung you?”

When reading an American Spectator piece about how the leadership consistently blocked efforts by Reps. King and Bachmann to defund the recently discovered Obamacare implementation spending in the CR passed yesterday, why are we hearing loathsome and resentful remarks coming from GOP leadership aides?

From Cantor’s office: "There is no way we can include their [Bachmann and King's] amendment; it would just bog us down and undercut the leadership goal of getting real cutting done through negotiations with Democrats and the White House.” Pressed about the leadership’s ‘promise’ given to Republicans on the Bachmann-King amendment as a stand-alone bill that has no chance of passage with the Senate Democrat majority: "This votes gives us the ability to say we voted to defund the slush fund, where it goes from there doesn't really matter," says an aide to Cantor. "We just want this off the table so we can get to some serious budget negotiations, not political stunts."

From McCarthy’s staff: “…there is nothing to all the hooey about how leadership is supporting funding of Obamacare, because we aren't bending to every whim of King and Queen Michele."

And Levin reported Monday: “I’m told that Boehner meets once a week, at least, with the freshman class. He thinks he has them under control, except for “twelve of the tea party crazies.” Hmmm, that’s what I’m told.”

In addition to the leadership’s staff, we’ve got cheerleaders like newly elected GOP Rep. Michael Grimm of New York calling citizens and representatives ‘extremists’: “The extreme wing of the Republican Party is making a big mistake with their flat-out opposition to a short-term continuing resolution. They’re not looking at the big picture, and the last thing we want to do is become like Nancy Pelosi in the last Congress, where it was 'my way or the highway.'" We’re not looking at the ‘big picture’, Mr. Grimm? Sounds like it’s YOUR WAY or the highway! This guy used his former Marine and former FBI associations to receive backing from the Staten Island Tea Party, and he repays them through insults?! I’m sure he, or his staff, would say one never officially endorsed the other, but the website bio that the local tea party wrote sounds like a very promising young conservative…oh well. Be sure to check out the link to his statement on healthcare, in which he says, “When I am elected to Congress this November, I will fight tooth and nail to repeal this trillion dollar - job killing - anti American legislation.” Umm, you just missed a huge ‘tooth and nail’ opportunity, Mr. Grimm.

Likewise, we’ve got one pundit saying conservatives are ‘zealous’ and ‘overreaching’. Speaking to Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer said, “As to the revolt among the conservatives, that is very interesting on the Republican side. I think the conservatives are rather zealous here and they may be overreaching. You don't want to shut down, and it won't help Republicans. If you are getting, as we are, a cut of $2 billion a week, even in the continuing resolutions, that's real money.” ‘Real money’, Mr. Krauthammer? Two billion is what our government spends in half a day! That fraction every few weeks is not going to hack away at our trillion-plus dollar deficit, nor our hemorrhaging multi-trillion dollar national debt. With statements like this, along with your 2012 picks for ‘serious presidential candidates' (and George Will’s, for that matter), your rapidly losing the respect of many who view you as a ‘serious’ political analyst.

Do ANY of these comments sound like anything that should be uttered out of the mouth of a ‘conservative’?! Hell, they sound like the run-of-the-mill elitist liberal comments, to be quite honest! Since constitutional conservatives are seemingly considered the ‘extremist wing’ of the Republican Party, let’s just call the Establishment ‘wing’ what they are: 'Wingless' (one might add ‘gutless’ and ‘spineless’ to the verbiage as well). You guys keep taking weak action and talking like this about a major portion of the conservative base, and not only will you have primary challengers throughout the next congressional races, but more importantly, you will assuredly split the party, creating a phisher that will swallow any hope of defeating Obama in 2012!

America Needs A Leader And In The House It Doesn't Have One

Within Levin's epilogue of Liberty and Tyranny, the actions taken yesterday by the House GOP leadership of Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are precisely illustrated, near the point of 'prediction', unfortunately to our detriment:

"Republicans seem clueless on how to slow, contain, and reverse the Statist's agenda. They seem to fear returning to first principles, lest they be rejected by the electorate, and so prefer to tinker ineffectively and timidly on the edges. As such, are they not abondoning what they claim to support? If the bulk of the people reject the civil society for the Statist's Utopia, preferring subjugation to citizenship, then the end is near anyway. But even in winning an election, governing without advancing first principles is a hollow victory indeed. Its imprudence is self-evident. This is not the way of the Conservative; it is the way of the neo-Statist -- subservient to a "reality" created by the Statist rather than the reality of unalienable rights granted by the Creator."

If there's anything that I'd add to this statement, it's that I believe the electorate would not reject them for returning to first principles; quite the contrary, the electorate rejects them for NOT doing so! The problem is that they're too busy wanting to be liked, particularly by the media, that fear has overcome true courage and frozen them to inaction.  No, this is not leadership at all, and conservatives should absolutely let their representatives know so!

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Courageous statesmen lead, while GOP leadership dither (UPDATE)

Monday, the conservative presence of November was indeed felt and heard from the likes of Steve King, Marco Rubio and Allen West, as well as others voicing their disapproval of these 3-week stopgaps (i.e., “kicking the can down the road”). Throughout the day, Rep. King called on constituents to keep the pressure on their representatives in an effort to get the GOP leadership on board with removing recently discovered funds for Obamacare implementation in the latest Continuing Resolution:

“Obamacare is today’s Gordian knot…The law was drafted to be incredibly difficult for lawmakers to unravel. When then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Barack Obama, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid drafted Obamacare, they quietly included provisions that automatically spend $105.5 billion over the next 10 years to implement the law.” Some of the automatic funding continues forever, King notes. “Unprecedented in scope, these self-enacting provisions grant Obamacare its own self-contained, automatic money machine. These are the resources that fertilize this malignant tumor, which is extending its roots into every aspect of our health care system.”

Sen. Marco Rubio posted a statement to RedState declaring, “I will no longer support short-term budget plans. While attempts at new spending reductions are commendable, we simply can no longer afford to nickel-and-dime our way out of the dangerous debt America has amassed. It is time our leaders in Washington wake up and realize that we are headed for a debt disaster.”

And Rep. Allen West declared “I will NOT be voting for another short term CR…There is a confrontation coming on this budget and the sooner we get to it the better.” He added that this isn’t playing well back home and that constituents “are tired of half-measures.”

“I make myself clear. I will not support anything less than HR 1 (the House bill with $61 billion in cuts) as it was sent forward to the Senate. Nor will I support another two week Continuing Resolution. Alexander the Great once stated, ‘Fortune favors the bold.’ The American people are looking for principled and bold leadership. I understand ‘political maneuvering’ but the time has come to engage in the battle for the fiscal responsible future of America. I shall take my position on the frontlines.”

So while we have courageous statesmen ready to battle, on the opposite end of the pendulum we find our own GOP leadership in the House (Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy), along with Senator minority leader Mitch McConnell, touting how this next CR needs to be passed, despite its address of massive Obamacare funding, for fear of a government shutdown. Spineless!

Colleagues throughout the weekend and into the beginning of the week have signed on with conservative Republicans and joined the responsible call for real fiscal cuts and a return to fiscal SANITY!  So, why the kickback for our 'leadership'? Well, here it is in a nutshell:

• Obama/Pelosi/Reid snuck $105.5B of spending over the next ten years into the Obamacare bill for its implementation.
• The GOP leadership doesn’t want to do anything about it for seemingly the sole fear of a shutdown (which is a bit of a misconception that Heritage covers).
• Conservative Republicans want the leadership to remove it, thus requiring a suspension of the ‘rules’, which state that only discretionary spending can be discussed/removed in a Continuing Resolution (Obamacare funding snuck in there is “authorized”).
• House Leadership (Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy) says they are going to obey the rules (despite having made hundreds of exceptions for other 'mandatory' spending...we'll get to this).
• King/Bachmann have explained how this can be removed without breaking 'the rules'.
• The Leadership thinks voting for ‘repeal’ was enough, and continues to observe the ‘mandatory’ status of ‘the rules’.

The people in November didn’t vote for this to be ‘the argument’ among Republicans! They didn’t vote for Republicans to get mired down arguing ‘among’ themselves, PERIOD!

We can respect the new leadership for wanting to set a higher standard; however, Democrats played dirty getting this passed by changing and dodging the rules, so it’s going to take getting our hands dirty to rip this plunder out.

Here's an important question:  Why are we wrapped up in ‘rules’ that don’t appear to be following proper legislative procedure in the first place?!

The new law attempts to bypass the normal appropriations process. By making advance appropriations for tens of billions of dollars up to the year 2019, these provisions of Obamacare seek to remove spending decisions from the reach of the current Congress and from future Congresses and Presidents.

Existing and advance appropriations need to be rescinded, just as the House last month voted to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations deemed ‘mandatory’ to 123 federal programs. An effort to restrict use of the funds appropriated within Obamacare was thwarted because the House did not waive the same point of order as it waived to allow de-funding those 123 other programs.

Boehner’s sitting back ‘waiting’ and ‘hoping’ that “the committees of proper jurisdiction will bring forward the bill to eliminate mandatory spending that is involved in that bill." Speaker Boehner, do you think Pelosi would be so nonchalant in tackling a problem of this magnitude? Of course not…she helped create THIS PROBLEM with the relentless vigor that we know all too well from the modern liberal. She would also scoff at the chatter associated with shutting down the government. Heritage covers the liberal’s motivation well:

Indeed, to force Americans into accepting the spending habits that have led to the crisis we face, liberals and their interest groups are trying to scare us with visions of a “government shutdown” that will deprive us of government services.

Do not buy any of this. What they seek is clear—to sap the resolve of those in Congress who want to carry out the mandate they were given at the elections: to cut spending and keep America strong.

Liberals have a much different vision of America than we conservatives do. If liberals can win this initial battle over the borrow-and-spend culture of Washington, they believe they can continue spending at reckless levels and force tax hikes to fundamentally transform America. If they win, there is no way we can bequeath to our children and grandchildren the country our forebears left us.

The time is NOW for our Speaker, and our Leadership on whole, to show equal vigor from the Right. Unfortunately, their record thus far leaves MUCH to be desired. If the leadership betrays the freshman conservatives, who are supported by the base, this will set up an untrustworthy precedence for the new Congress, and a tense situation that could have been avoided by having one key quality of a true statesman: COURAGE.

ADDENDUM:  I'll leave you with Levin's words to reflect on... well as, David Limbaugh's new column: "GOP Fear That History Will Repeat Helps Ensure It Will".  He's exactly right!

Now we're coming up on another deadline, and congressional Republicans are presenting yet another continuing resolution, which contains $6 billion in spending cuts but doesn't, any more than the previous CR, include so-called "policy riders" that would address important issues, such as defunding Obamacare and Planned Parenthood.

The maddening irony is that Republicans seem to be ensuring that history repeats itself precisely because they are behaving as if they fear that history will repeat itself. We can only assume that they're looking back in horror at Bill Clinton's deceptive PR triumph over Newt Gingrich in effectively pinning the government shutdown on congressional Republicans. Utterly paranoid of being scapegoated by Obama for a current-day impasse leading to a shutdown, they are acquiescing to ongoing temporary Band-Aid budgets that, despite the budgetary cuts they contain, are improving the Democrats' long-term negotiating position and thus -- and more importantly -- imperiling their efforts to slash the actual budget.

I believe that Republicans are severely miscalculating the public mood. We are no longer in the '90s; we face a nation-threatening debt crisis, and Republicans' primary opponent is a weak president who is doing more to exacerbate our problems than he is to solve them. A government shutdown would not be the end of the world, but the GOP's failure to act emphatically on spending could be -- so to speak.

One unfortunate constant is the Republicans' incapacity to handle their electoral prosperity. They need to take a lesson from Obama's playbook and start behaving as if they understand that "we won." They must get over their irrational fear of a government shutdown and negotiate as if they have the superior hand -- the will of the people -- because they do.

UPDATE: Though the vote was closer, the House has approved yet another short-term CR...and the frustration grows!  This is now Boehner's 'can' to kick down the road.  Here's the roll call.