Rush: 'Democrats are worried that what they're predicting won't happen'

This is the absolute truth about this whole sequester scare that the President and Co. are out there promulgating: Democrats are worried it won't produce the level of destruction they're predicting!

"Democrats are worried that after all this crisis and fear mongering, after all of these threats...if that stuff doesn't happen, the Democrats are worried that they're not gonna have any credibility anymore on this. The Democrat are actually worried that what they're predicting will not happen. In other words, they would feel more comfortable if all of this mess DID occur, because it's all about winning the political point, it's all about campaigning. It isn't about governing. So it's shifting the blame for everything to the Republicans who are essentially powerless."

'Powerless' because if the sequester is allowed to kick in, it's directed by the executive branch, not the legislature. Yet, Obama and Democrats will continue to vent through the media that it's all Republicans fault...

The idea that we can cut government and actually survive, sends these statist Democrats (and more than a few Big Government RINOs) into a full-on PANICK!



Related link: Putting sequesteria in perspective.

Levin: 'Obama is the biggest doomsday prepper in the land'

Yet they call our guys 'alarmists'? Just listen and use your noggin, folks...

GAO: Obamacare adds $6.2 Trillion to deficit

“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future?” ~ Barack Hussein Obama II

Oh look, more debt...and yet another lie...



As WeaselZippers sarcastically gasps, Shocker.

NRO: Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office report that will be released today.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he said, “confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill,” and “dramatically proves that the promises made assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false.”

Anticipate the nothing-to-see-here-move-along attitude from the MSM...

Hagel confirmed (UPDATED)

So is the new strategy for the GOP stall, then pass? What a bunch...

NBC: Chuck Hagel’s seven-week struggle to win confirmation as secretary of defense appears near the end with an expected Senate vote Tuesday on his nomination.

President Barack Obama’s choice to run the Pentagon is expected to win confirmation since a few Republicans announced that they’ll join Senate Democrats in voting for him.

Btw, NBC, Sen. Cruz (a.k.a. one of the good guys) is still waiting to hear about those undisclosed speeches to radical groups and money Hagel received from foreign sources. Oh well, Chuck's a Democrat pawn now, so, as Hillary would say, what's it matter.

FYI, I'll delete the 'likely' in the title once the GOP disgracefully joins with the Democrats to confirm this schmuck.

UPDATES: Done. 'Likely' deleted.

The margin was historically close, with 58 senators supporting him and 41 opposing in the end.

Major Garrett reports the four GOP "Aye" votes for Hagel: Cochran, Johanns, Shelby and Paul.

Damn it, Rand.

More than half of Americans want deportation for illegal entry (UPDATE)

As John McRINO and Lindsey Grahamnesty meet with Obama today, you can guarantee that there'll be one statistic left out of the discussion: the Reuters/Ipsos poll indicating that more than half of U.S. citizens say illegal aliens should be deported!

Reuters: More than half of U.S. citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the U.S. immigration system.

The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007.

Thirty percent of those polled think that most illegal immigrants, with some exceptions, should be deported, while 23 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.

Only 5 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, and 31 percent want most illegal immigrants to stay.

These results are in line with other polls in recent years, suggesting that people's views on immigration have not changed dramatically since the immigration debate reignited in Congress last month...

Yet another reminder of how politically-driven this debate is...all for votes, folks!

Look, we all know our immigration system needs improvement, but that has little to do with this push to somehow legalize those who've broken federal law through illegal entry. Amnesty didn't work when Reagan tried it, and he'd be the first to tell you it was one of his biggest mistakes (next to trusting Democrats to follow through on spending cuts!). This is yet another emotional plea bargain...and this from some of the same advocates and politicians who tell us to get over the infanticide this nation has participated in over the past 40 years! Remove the sympathetic arguments for a moment, and look strictly at the Law...you won't find that accommodating and rewarding lawbreakers is a righteous solution. To do so would not only be political suicide for the minority party, because let's face facts, illegals given amnesty in any form will vote Democrat overwhelmingly; but at a lawful level, it's a slap in the face to everyone who has gone through the legal immigration process, however cumbersome it might be. If ever there's an emotional aspect to consider, that's it.

And can someone please tell the Wall Street Journal and other supposedly conservative media outlets that the only immigration dilemma we have is that the federal government made up of both Republicans and Democrats is failing at one of its primary functions in maintaining the sovereignty of our nation by securing its borders and enforcing a legal system of immigration like every other nation in the world. Instead, this regime would flip law on its head, do the reverse and give some lame excuse like we had to free detainees to save money. Again, the answer to this problem, like all problems, is enforcement of the law, NOT rewarding lawbreakers.

So, if we've got so many compassionate politicians (I know...just go with it for a moment) on both sides of the aisle who want to help our friends to the south (that's primarily who we're discussing, let's be frank), then why don't we do something to help tackle corruption in Mexico so that the country and its people might thrive? Not that that's anymore our business than a foreign people invading a sovereign nation, but I'm just making the point that spending taxpayers' money in a more noble manner is never a consideration. It's all about subsidizing for political gain, while never solving a damn thing.

Despite all the arguments, the stark, historic reality of this situation, just as much as others that we're facing concurrently, is that the more the Rule of Law crumbles, the quicker a nation collapses, both economically and culturally, more internally than externally.

UPDATE: Oh, now Gallup has proved to the Republicans that no amount of pandering will gain traction with Latinos...

TheDC: A new report by Gallup suggests that the GOP is unlikely to boost its support among Latinos to much more than 25 percent.

“It appears that young Hispanic adults will remain lopsidedly Democratic throughout their lives, [and] there is also no generational evidence at this point suggesting that they will become more Republican,” said the Monday report, which combines data from Gallup’s daily tracking polls of 26,264 Hispanics.

“Majorities or near-majorities across all age groups among Hispanic adults identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, including 50% of middle-aged Hispanics and 59% of older Hispanics,” said the report, which relied on data collected throughout 2012.

Yet, McCain and Graham continue to believe that setting illegal latinos on a path to citizenship will somehow help their party? What morons. All this proves is that most Latinos believe Big Government is what leads to prosperity in America. Really shows you what kind of government Repubes like these two support, doesn't it?

Obama admin isn't that concerned with sequester afterall

Do these headlines sound like the Obama administration is really as concerned with sequestration as it would have us believe?

Furloughs are looming, but the feds are still hiring

The federal government is facing massive furloughs beginning later this week, but it is still running help-wanted ads seeking workers to answer phones — at up to $81,000 a year — or to drive cars for the State Department, for as much as $26.45 an hour.

Why close airports? FAA’s annual budget for ‘consultants, travel’ is larger than sequestration cuts

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood threatened to shut down airports if Congress does not undo sequestration, even though the Federal Aviation Administration annual budget for consultants, travel, and supplies is larger than the sequester cut.

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn...

More federal workers' pay tops $150,000

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office...

Federal workers starting at much higher pay than in past

Newly hired federal workers are starting at much higher salaries than those who did the same jobs in the past, a lift that has elevated the salaries of scientists and custodians alike. The pay hikes have made the federal government a go-to place for many young people.

Some federal pensions pay handsome rewards

More than 21,000 retired federal workers receive lifetime government pensions of $100,000 or more per year... Of these, nearly 2,000 have federal pensions that pay $125,000 or more annually, and 151 take home $150,000 or more. Six federal retirees get more than $200,000 a year.

And then comes the topper. It seems that our Man of the People is safe whether the sequester comes or not...

CNSNews: President Barack Obama won’t have to worry about his paycheck if the spending sequestration included in the Budget Control Act that he signed into law in 2011 begins taking effect this Friday.

A report published last month by the Congressional Research Service--“Budget Sequestration and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules"--identifies certain programs that are exempt from sequestration and lays out special rules that govern the sequestration of others.

Section 255 of the Budget Control Act includes “Compensation for the President” as one of those exemptions (Page 19).

“Most exempt programs are mandatory, and include Social Security and Medicaid; refundable tax credits to individuals; and low-income programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Supplemental Security Income,” the report states.

“Some discretionary programs also are exempt, notably all programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs,” it said. “Also, subject to notification of Congress by the president, military personnel accounts may either be exempt or reduced by a lower percentage,” the report states. (The report states in a footnote that the White House notified Congress last year of President Obama's intention to exempt military personnel accounts from sequestration.)

Pensions for former presidents are also exempt, according to the report.

Oh look, Obama's exempt...shocker. And his typical lines about social security checks not going out and our military members not being paid, etc., etc....baloney. Just more of the same ol' rehashed lies and scare tactics. What a charade this sequester scare is turning out to be. If Boehner and the boys fall for this, they won't just be the laughing stock we know the Republican leadership already is, they'll be that closer to furthering the party's own demise.

H/t: Mark Levin

Laugh of the Day: Malkin parodies Mooch!

The laugh of the day is provided by Michelle Malkin! Thank you, Michelle...we needed a good one after that classless act of a so-called First Lady showed her @$$ Friday night...

MichelleMalkin: Hey, who needs Saturday Night Live?! It’s been a while since I was inspired to post a YouTube parody. Jimmy Fallon and Michelle Obama provided the perfect opportunity. On Friday, the late-night comedy duo collaborated on an “Evolution of Mom Dancing” video that has the lib media swooning. Here’s their video (which parodies the classic Evolution of Dance video series):



And here’s my response: The Evolution of Liberal Dance! Which one’s your favorite?



I’ll be posting more YouTube videos again after a long hiatus. Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel here!

We know Moochelle can't help herself, she thrives on the attention...even if some among the base are growing weary. Hey, btw, where's her royal highness' Oscar? Just saying...

UPDATE: Malkin responds to her Evolution of Liberal Dance critics and discuss why she did the video...

How Obama's misleading on sequestration...and why Congress shouldn't listen

Levin discussed this on Friday, but since many begin tuning out in anticipation of the weekend (including yours truly), I thought it beneficial to hold this one over until Monday morning...fresh on your mind. It primarily revolves around Bob Woodward's piece in the Washington Post, exposing the sequester fear tactic for what it is...and the fact that it's directly coming from the man who indeed approved it. Ed Morrissey did a commendable job of encapsulating the particulars over the weekend...

HotAir: Success may have a thousand fathers, and failure be an orphan, but don’t doubt the parentage of the sequester. After yet another week of White House denials of paternity and a new layer of hysteria over the nature of the cuts involved, Bob Woodward reminds us again who came up with the plan in the first place. As he reported in his book The Price of Politics more than a year ago from on-the-record interviews with the players involved, the sequester was proposed by then-Chief of Staff Jack Lew and personally approved by President Barack Obama, before Harry Reid presented it to Republicans as a take-it-or-leave-it option to end the summer 2011 budget standoff.

Why lie about this? Woodward explains that shifting blame is a necessary part of moving the goal posts the actual issue at hand in August 2011. By that point, the real problem for Obama was the debt ceiling, and the sequester put off the question of both spending cuts and tax increases. Republicans had agreed at that point to a deal that included a 1:1 ratio of new revenues (through tax reform rather than rate increases) and spending cuts, but then Obama came back and wanted more revenues, which scotched the deal. With the debt ceiling approaching a crisis point, both goals got pushed aside in exchange for a punt and the sequester as a lever to force a decision down the road.

Besides, Republicans already compromised on the revenue side in January. Now it’s time to work on the spending cuts, but Obama clearly doesn’t want to cut anything from the budget. The nature of the cuts in the sequester and the disconnect from White House hysteria on them is so sharp as to dispel any doubt on that point.

...the sequester amounts to $1.2 trillion in reductions in the trajectory of spending growth over the next ten years, in which we project to spend $45 trillion. It amounts to a 2.7% decrease in overall spending over the decade, hardly Draconian or savage or whatever hyperventilated appellation one chooses to use. If we can’t agree to cut even that much, there is no hope for a broader budget reform that brings us back to balanced budgets in the future, and there aren’t enough taxes in the country to make up the difference from the other direction without killing the economy and wiping out revenue altogether.

Repeating Woodward's conclusion, "So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts...that was not the deal he made."

With all the panic going on between D.C. and their media, the voters see it quite differently. Scott Rasmussen reports only D.C. is panicking about sequester cuts:

The expectation was that voters would rise up and protest the automatic spending cuts with such vehemence that it would force Republicans and Democrats to work together. But it hasn't happened.

...the reports spilling out of the nation's capital about the harm that the automatic cuts will do to the economy, they're unlikely to resonate with most voters. After all, 68 percent believe that cutting government spending is the best thing the government could do to help the economy.

...voters are likely to see the sequester as a failure for official Washington. It will be further proof that their elected officials are incapable of doing their jobs. So incapable, in fact, that automatic, arbitrary and thoughtless budget-cutting is a better option than anything Congress and the president could come up with.

But the real reason for the panic in Washington is that the American people ultimately may applaud the spending cuts. That might mark the beginning of the end for politics as usual.

The best advice for congressional Republicans: Don't listen to the liars!

[Last] week, we were “treated” to the ridiculous spectacle of a grandstanding president of the United States giving a campaign-like speech against his own ideas and policies. Barack Hussein Obama II referred to the upcoming “sequestration“, which was his idea, as like taking a “meat cleaver” to the economy.

The sky is falling! People will DIE! Millions will lose their jobs! Meat won’t be inspected! Children will have nobody to watch over and care for them! National security will be at risk! The border will be overrun! (As if it’s not overrun now, by design of the Obama administration.) Airplanes won’t fly! Unemployment will necessarily skyrocket! Mind you, $44 billion is what our government spends about every 9 days.

The sequestration is a “manufactured crisis,” Obama said. Indeed it is: A crisis manufactured by the White House.

Not only was the idea his idea, not only did he sign the bill to put sequestration into effect, but he also threatened to veto any attempt to stop the automatic cuts in the rate of growth!

The “automatic cuts” in the RATE OF GROWTH of spending take effect on March 1. That is, unless the Republicans cave in fear. Unless they listen to the liars.

Congressional Republicans: Don’t listen to the liars. The people are on your side.

...Americans want the deficit reduced, and they want it done mostly by spending cuts, not increased taxes.

Celebrating the Father of Our Country

"I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man."

Today we celebrate the actual 281st birthday of our first and inarguably most revered president, George Washington. And as we reflect on the greatness of this magnificent American icon, it is the hope of many, certainly mine, that we might once again as a People recognize the importance of restoring the unique celebration of this great American Patriot and give The Father of Our Country his proper respect...

MountVernon: Declared a legal holiday by the federal government in 1885, George Washington’s Birthday has culturally morphed into “Presidents’ Day.” ...  In 1968, the [Uniform Monday Holiday Act] was enacted by the United States Congress to provide for uniform annual observances of public holidays. George Washington’s Birthday was slated to be recognized on the third Monday in February. The law was enacted in 1971, yet popular culture has perpetuated the myth that the holiday was designated to honor presidential officeholders in general. Officially, however, the holiday has never changed. Nor should it.

To lump Washington together with the 42 other men who have been elected president in this country does not assign him the significance he deserves. The only president to be elected unanimously – and it happened to him twice – Washington essentially shaped the office of the president. With tremendous foresight, he knew that his actions would set important precedents, and he conscientiously labored over many of his decisions. Unlike modern presidents, Washington did not conduct polls to determine what steps to take. Instead, he asked the same question, over and over again: “What is the best course for America?” His instincts were seldom wrong, and his patriotism never faltered. Washington once said, “I can never resist the call of my country,” and he responded to his country’s needs time and time again.

Washington’s critical role as commander in chief during the Revolutionary War, his refusal to become king when others called for it, his chairmanship of the Constitutional Convention, his ability to hold the nation together and remain neutral during European conflicts, and his wise and steady influence during the nascent development of the new republic – these are just some of the reasons why Washington, The Father of His Country, should be given singular attention.

Many Americans may take seriously their love of country, yet evidence suggests we are caring less and less about the people and events that played key roles in the history of the United States. As author and historian David McCullough so eloquently said, “Indifference to history isn’t just ignorant; it’s a form of ingratitude.”

We have a long road to travel to reverse this disturbing trend. A good place to start is by returning “Presidents’ Day” to its rightful name and purpose. On this day that is set aside to honor George Washington, Americans should re-discover why he was so crucial to the founding of this nation. They should talk to their children about his renowned character and virtues. Families should plan trips to Mount Vernon and other historic places where Washington lived and worked. And most of all, Americans should shed their indifference and be grateful for the man who led this remarkable nation to freedom.

Here, here!

As for any words that I could provide to the modern politician, particularly the current presidential office holder, but not excluding congressional leadership either, I'd encourage all to review Washington's Farewell Address, and take a lesson in both grace and humility.

What to expect without representation

Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free." ~ John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States, Vol. 1, Ch. 16, Doc. 15, 1787

If you didn't catch Mark Levin's program Thursday evening, you really ought to go back and at least listen to his first hour. This was one of those professorial lessons, which if you're a regular listener, are among the best...

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about the historical relationships between the government, the citizen and how this has changed over time as the government has become more intrusive and over bearing. Mark stresses how the Founder's believed that private property and the right to own property was such a pinnacle aspect of being able to self-rule one's life. We know that the media won't help us so we need to represent ourselves to the Republicans and Congress and let it be known that we want principled leaders. Mark talks about how the establishment is going to feel politically threatened by us and that the time is now for them to represent us and realize that without us, they won't be able to continue their power grabs. Eventually this house of cards will collapse unless they change course soon; enough with the Karl Rove establishment puppets that are putting the country at risk.

Levin began the program with the above reading of what amounts to John Adams' astonishing foresight into America's struggle with modern-day Marxism, in our own President and many others in Washington. Adams would have no hesitation in calling it tyranny. Then Levin commenced in taking the entire first hour of his show to read and discuss Angelo Codevilla's latest article, discussing how the Republican leadership in Washington has thrown in with the Ruling Class, and how we no longer have representation...something Mark himself often points out...

On January 1, 2013 one third of Republican congressmen, following their leaders, joined with nearly all Democrats to legislate higher taxes and more subsidies for Democratic constituencies. Two thirds voted no, following the people who had elected them. For generations, the Republican Party had presented itself as the political vehicle for Americans whose opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes makes them a “country class.” Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.” They have relished that role despite their voters. Thus these leaders gradually solidified their choice to no longer represent what had been their constituency, but to openly adopt the identity of junior partners in that ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the identity of Republican voters and of the majority of Republican elected representatives, the Republican leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

By the law of supply and demand, millions of Americans, (arguably a majority) cannot remain without representation. Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old. This marks these political orphans as a “country class.” In 1776 America’s country class responded to lack of representation by uniting under the concept: “all men are created equal.” In our time, its disparate sectors’ common sentiment is more like: “who the hell do they think they are?”

The ever-growing U.S. government has an edgy social, ethical, and political character. It is distasteful to a majority of persons who vote Republican and to independent voters, as well as to perhaps one fifth of those who vote Democrat. The Republican leadership’s kinship with the socio-political class that runs modern government is deep. Country class Americans have but to glance at the Media to hear themselves insulted from on high as greedy, racist, violent, ignorant extremists. Yet far has it been from the Republican leadership to defend them. Whenever possible, the Republican Establishment has chosen candidates for office – especially the Presidency – who have ignored, soft-pedaled or given mere lip service to their voters’ identities and concerns.

Thus public opinion polls confirm that some two thirds of Americans feel that government is “them” not “us,” that government has been taking the country in the wrong direction, and that such sentiments largely parallel partisan identification: While a majority of Democrats feel that officials who bear that label represent them well, only about a fourth of Republican voters and an even smaller proportion of independents trust Republican officials to be on their side. Again: While the ruling class is well represented by the Democratic Party, the country class is not represented politically – by the Republican Party or by any other. Well or badly, its demand for representation will be met.

Representation is the distinguishing feature of democratic government. To be represented, to trust that one’s own identity and interests are secure and advocated in high places, is to be part of the polity. In practice, any democratic government’s claim to the obedience of citizens depends on the extent to which voters feel they are party to the polity. No one doubts that the absence, loss, or perversion of that function divides the polity sharply between rulers and ruled.

…as the Democratic Party has grown its constituent parts into a massive complex of patronage, its near monopoly of education has endowed its leaders ever more firmly with the conviction that they are as entitled to deference and perquisites as they are to ruling. The host of its non-governmental but government-financed entities, such as Planned Parenthood and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, argue for government funding by stating, correctly, that they are pursuing the public interest as government itself defines it.

Thus by the turn of the twenty first century America had a bona fide ruling class that transcends government and sees itself at once as distinct from the rest of society – and as the only element thereof that may act on its behalf. … The civilization of the ruling class does not concede that those who resist it have any moral or intellectual right, and only reluctantly any civil right, to do so. Resistance is illegitimate because it can come only from low motives. President Obama’s statement that Republican legislators – and hence the people who elect them – don’t care whether “seniors have decent health care…children have enough to eat” is typical.

Republican leaders neither parry the insults nor vilify their Democratic counterparts in comparable terms because they do not want to beat the ruling class, but to join it in solving the nation’s problems. How did they come to cut such pathetic figures?

There's much more to this article, and I'd suggest everyone reading it's very full two pages worth. But Codevilla's point in all of this is that the Republican leadership is utterly disconnected from the Republican base. Levin uses this superb article to underscore what he feels is the future of the Republican Party and I feel the nation: that we are not represented in Washington. And specifically pertaining to the Republican leadership and the Establishment: “they don’t represent us, because they join the other side in too many respects.” Skipping ahead a bit...

It matters less whether two thirds of Republican congressmen vote against their leaders as they did on January 1, 2013 out of conviction or because their constituents demand it. Fact is, Republican leaders become less significant with every passing year because they have no way of reversing the intellectual trends from above or the popular pressure from below. Recent Presidential elections have shown that contemporary Establishment Republicans elicit scarce, unenthusiastic support even from longtime Republican voters because they are out of sync with their flock. ...

This of course is what happened to the Whig party after 1850. After it became undeniable that party leader Henry Clay’s latest great compromise had sold the party’s principles cheap, the most vigorous Whigs, e.g. New York governor William Seward and national hero John C. Fremont – joined by an obscure Illinois ex-congressman named Abraham Lincoln whose only asset was that he reasoned well – looked for another vehicle for their cause. In 1854, together with representatives of other groups, they founded the Republican Party. Today the majority of Republican congressmen plus a minority of senators – dissidents from the Party but solid with their voters – are the natural core of a new party. The name it might bear is irrelevant. Very relevant are sectors of America’s population increasingly represented by groups that sprang up to represent them when the Republican leadership did not.

Hence the TEA PARTY, Levin adds.

This representation is happening by default. It is aided by the internet, which makes it possible to spread ideas to which the educational Establishment gives short shrift and which the ruling class media shun. In short, the internet helps undermine the ruling class’ near-homogenization of American intellectual life, its closing of the American mind. ...

The internet also spread the power to organize. Already in the 1970s Richard Viguerie had begun to upset the political parties’ monopoly on organization by soliciting money from the general public for causes and candidates through direct mail. The internet amplified this technique’s effectiveness by orders of magnitude, making it possible to transmit ideas and political signals while drawing financial support from millions of likeminded people throughout the country. Thus informed with facts and opinion, sectors of the country class have felt represented and empowered vis a vis the ruling class. Those on the electronic distribution list of the “Club for Growth,” for example, are at least as well informed on economic matters as any credentialed policy maker. The several pro-life organizations have spread enough knowledge of embryology and moral logic to make Roe v. Wade, which the ruling class regards as its greatest victory, a shrinking island in American jurisprudence and society. The countless Tea Parties that have sprung up all over have added their countless attendees to networks of information and organization despite the ruling class’ effort to demonize them. The same goes for evangelicals, gun owners, etc. Though such groups represent the country class fragmentarily, country class people identify with them rather than with the Republican Party because the groups actually stand for something, and represent their adherents against the ruling class’ charges, insults, etc.

Since America’s first-past-the-post electoral system produces elections between two parties, it was natural for any and all groups who oppose the ruling class to gravitate to the Republican Party. But the Party’s leaders, reasoning that “they have nowhere else to go,” refused to notice that voters were lending their votes out of allegiance to causes rather than to the Party, and that Republican candidates increasingly sought votes through the medium of groups that advocate these causes rather than through the Party Establishment. It was shocked when candidates won Republican primaries by aligning themselves with such groups, against the Party itself. The flood of votes that such groups energized in 2010 signified that the groups, not the Party, had come to represent opposition to the ruling class. But post 2010, the Republican leadership continued to pretend to be the county class’ representative while not actually representing it. Its donors buried opposition to Mitt Romney in attack ads and picked its own kind of candidates wherever it could.

After the leadership’s electoral disaster of 2012 and its subsequent pathetic fecklessness the only vision of a possible future in Republican ranks – the only programmatic and organizational coherence –was among the Party’s dissident majority in the House and dissident minority in the Senate. By 2013 it was less meaningful to ask what the leadership would do with the dissidents than what the dissidents would do with the leadership. The answer seemed to be: increasingly to ignore it, to go one’s own way; more and more, to go along with conscience and with voters. By 2013 as their numbers continued to grow without counter trend, it was difficult to imagine how the leadership might reduce their numbers.

At the same time, the groups that represent the country class’ pieces were mounting and winning more primary challenges to Establishment Republicans. The establishment responded with its main asset: money. The New York Times reported a concerted effort by the Party’s biggest donors led by longtime Bush staffer Karl Rove (yes, the Rockefeller wing) to support Establishment candidates in the primary process. But establishment candidates are already better funded than dissidents, usually massively so. The establishment candidates who have survived dissident challenges have seldom done it through sheer cash, but rather by fuzzing the differences between themselves and the dissidents. ...

Codevilla's conclusion:

A new party is likely to arise because the public holds both Republicans and Democrats responsible for the nation’s unsustainable course. Indebtedness cannot increase endlessly. Nor can regulations pile on top of regulations while the officials who promulgate them – and their pensions – continue to grow, without crushing those beneath. Nor can the population’s rush to disability status and other forms of public assistance, or the no-win wars that have resulted in “open season” on Americans around the world, continue without catharsis. One half of the population cannot continue passively to absorb insults without pushing back. When – sooner rather than later – events collapse this house of cards, it will be hard to credibly advocate a better future while bearing a label that advertises responsibility for the present. ...

To represent the country class, to set about reversing the ills the ruling class imposed on America, a party would have to confront the ruling class’ pretenses, with unity and force comparable to that by which these were imposed. There will be no alternative to all the country class’ various components acting jointly on measures dear to each.

Angelo Codevilla has seemingly given up on the Republican Party because of the Republican leadership, because it doesn't represent anyone anymore. It doesn't even represent two-thirds of its Republican members! And in the Senate, the leadership's representation of its own members is even smaller. Levin says, "His point is those of us who believe in gun rights, those of us who believe in traditional marriage, those of us who believe in fiscal responsibility, those of us who believe in the Constitution, those of us who are believers in the American heritage, will go elsewhere. And in 2012, he believes millions of us decided 'to hell with both parties' and chose not to show up." Finishing the article, Levin reads...

...the country class, to defend itself, to cut down the forest of subsidies and privileges that choke America, to curb the arrogance of modern government, cannot shy away from offending the ruling class’ intellectual and moral pretenses. Events themselves show how dysfunctional the ruling class is. But only a political party worthy of the name can marshal the combination of reason, brutal images, and consistency adequately to represent America’s country class.

By going through this in meticulous detail with his audience (and I've even skipped through sum of Levin's reading), Mark warns that if the Republican Party doesn't embrace conservative, American, founding principles, then it will destroy itself. We cannot survive the Karl Roves, the Bush dynasty, or a tepid Speaker. Levin's final message to the Establishment: "You either join with us, or you're finished." That is to say, get on board with conservatism, or you won't simply be asked to go your own way...your party will cease to exist.

ADDENDUM: And for those who are still with me and daring enough to enter Levin's 2nd hour, the Great One enters into examples of what Codevilla is talking about:

theRightScoop: Mark Levin blasted Obama for going on Al Sharpton’s radio show and smearing not just your representatives, but you. And then he torched Republicans for being so weak that they end up throwing in with Obama’s mindset.

See, you only care about the rich, according to the President. You, the country class, are not worthy of a respectable response, you're not worthy of the Ruling Class, you're not worthy of the Statists, so you have to be put down. He has to go on Al Not-So-Sharpton's radio show to disgracefully smear you. Then worse, the Republican leadership throws in with Obama! They fear shutting down the government, not even for a day. They have to surrender; they want to surrender. They pretend to be with us, while they want to defeat us...

WashingtonExaminer: Congressional Republicans are considering a proposal that would give the Obama administration authority to choose what gets the axe under the automatic spending cuts required by sequestration. The measure is intended to negate the “across-the-board” nature of sequestration while still maintaining the size of the spending cuts, sources said.

“Those conversations are happening and they’re happening at a leadership level,” a Senate source told The Washington Examiner. “The bill would not try to replace the cuts, [but] it would instead give the president maximum authority to prioritize.”

Cowards. Pathetic. Rather than explaining to the American people, day in and day out, the dire financial straits the nation is in, they're worried about whose gonna get the blame? They want to pass a bill giving the President cart blanche in deciding what to cut and what to leave? And this view is supported by National Review? And of course Karl Rove. Rather than explain what a tiny 'cut' this is (that's not actually even a cut), they're worried about blame? This is not representative of any responsible action whatsoever.