..or, perhaps, “Bye-bye Boehner.” I’ll take either one. Following the GOP sell-out to the Gang of Eight, John Boehner was on the path to sell-out the country as well—until 80 Representatives gave him a slap upside his head and a reality check.

Boehner had said after the meeting with conservative Representatives the immigration would be presented to the House only if a majority of the GOP agrees. At this moment, that won’t happen.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.


Boehner tells GOP caucus: I won’t bring an immigration bill to the floor unless a majority of you support it

posted at 1:11 pm on June 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Not for a moment do I think he’s following the Hastert Rule here on principle, but that’s okay. As long as the House GOP gets a veto, I don’t care what his motive is. Fear works just fine.

“I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner told reporters following a closed-door House GOP conference meeting…

According to a member who attended the meeting, Boehner argued against the Hastert Rule, but assured his colleagues that he would adhere to it on immigration.

On Monday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher warned that Boehner should lose his gavel if he moved forward on immigration without majority support, saying it would be a “betrayal” of the party…

Asked by reporters if he agreed with Rohrabacher’s assessment, the Speaker considered the question and replied “maybe.”

GOP Rep. Tom Cotton told Guy Benson last night that he doubts even a small number of Republicans would support a bill like the Gang of Eight’s where amnesty comes before border security. That depends, I suppose, on what he means by “amnesty.” Democrats will insist on probationary legalization first, although they’re willing to let the path to eventual citizenship start later. If Cotton means that security will have to come before even legalization, then immigration reform’s probably dead. A note of caution, though: Boehner also told reporters yesterday that he’s “increasingly concerned” that Democrats would “rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result.” That’s the ol’ “sabotage” theory that’s constantly being used to convince conservative amnesty skeptics that the way to really stick it to Obama and Schumer is to pass reform and deny them a wedge issue next year. It’s the purest nonsense, and the fact that Boehner is pushing it even now shows how eager he is to make something happen here. Promising to follow the Hastert Rule is encouraging, but don’t rule out a last-minute betrayal if he thinks he has 218 with Democratic support.

In fact, per National Journal, Boehner and the House leadership have been leaning on conservatives quietly to play ball:

Republicans on and off the Hill say Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy all want to do something on immigration. Boehner “really wants to get that done but he has to be real quiet about it because if he puts his name on it and his brand on it, like he did with the big (fiscal-cliff) deal, then it’s probably going to die under its own weight,” a former GOP leadership aide said…

“What will have to happen, and is happening in private discussions, is that we have to convince these guys if we’re going to go to conference, we’re not going to cave on our principles,” a senior House GOP aide said. “That is the sales job you have to make to those guys.”…

“This is one of those issues where they may only get 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it on the House floor, but there won’t be the huge internal backlash,” the former aide said. “And that gives (leadership) some room to maneuver and they have some conservative cover. They have (Sen. Marco) Rubio and (Rep. Raul) Labrador,” who are two key conservative Republicans pushing reform.

Boehner, of course, claims he won’t bring it to the floor in the first place if there are only 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it. Here’s a scenario that seems plausible to me: What if he rounds up, say, 60-75 Republicans to vote yes, which wouldn’t be close to a majority of the caucus but might impress people as a sizable enough minority that it makes the bill “bipartisan” for rhetorical purposes? And what if, on top of that, the RNC and the House leadership start rolling out lots of prominent Republicans to endorse passing the bill with those 60-75 GOP votes, even if it means violating the Hastert Rule? Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, maybe Jindal, maybe Chris Christie, maybe even Rand Paul — imagine all of them in a full-court media press declaring the bill a triumph, a gift to Republicans, and something that should be passed even if Democrats provide most of the votes. Passionate grassroots righties who follow this stuff day to day would bristle, but all the low-information Republicans out there would probably be impressed by it. The calculus for the party is deciding which is more dangerous to its future, taking the rap for killing immigration reform by having it implode in the House or alienating some conservatives by passing it with most of the Republican caucus opposed. I honestly don’t know which way they’d come down on that. Their eternal trump card, which they’d play again in 2014, is that RINOs are the lesser of two evils vis-a-vis Democrats and therefore most of the righties who declare “I’m staying home!” after amnesty passes will suck it up and vote GOP in the midterms anyway. One thing that would help head off that possibility is having more anti-amnesty conservatives speak up, to sway the low-information voters the other way. Where’s Ted Cruz? Are there no major young Republican governors willing to answer the bell?

By the way, Harry Reid’s suddenly very, very eager to keep immigration reform moving in the Senate. I think Byron York’s right as to why. Keep hope alive.

Let’s hope Boehner and the rest of the House GOP establishment heeds this call.

Divergence vs. Convergence

I had an interesting weekend…well Saturday at least. Like many, I’ve been greatly disappointed in the ‘Pub establishment at all levels. Most of my ire is focused towards the Washington leadership, slightly less so at the state establishment.  With those sentiments in mind, I’ve been looking and searching for other conservatives who feel like me. I thought I’d found one such group.

One of the problems we conservatives have is that we’re divided. If you analyze the 2012 election results, you’ll see that more than two million “conservative” voters stayed home this year. Those missing voters had an impact at the federal and state level. The primary problem appears to have been the disbelief and rejection by those voters of the establishment ‘Pub leadership, platform and candidate. A portion of those voters dropped out due to the man-handling of opposition delegates during the Miami convention.

We all laughed when the democrat party ignored their delegates on reinstating God into the dem platform. No one laughed when the ‘Pub establishment added more constraints on grassroots organizations with the goal to minimalize the power of those delegates.

So I and others have been looking for conservative groups whose aim is to rebuild the party—to create coalitions, to unite the various splinter groups, to build a convergence of thought to strengthen the party and to reinstate, to renew and merge, our views with those of the establishment. The establishment has run rough-shod over internal opposition too long. It’s time to force change. With those thoughts in mind, I drove to Columbia to meet with some folks whom I thought may be one such group.

There were only a dozen people overall. Many had driven similar distances as did I. A couple were local drop-ins who sought more information. The group leaders had some slick flyers stating their purpose and vision and copies of the state by-laws.  I scanned the material and found nothing therein that I opposed. In fact, from the documentation, I thought my search was over.

I was mistaken.

I followed my usual methodology…I listened. The groups was clearly divided by age—the “thirty-somethings” and those in their fifties and older. I was encouraged. The age spread would provide a good mix.

Then I listed to the rhetoric and doubts began to appear. The younger and more numerous members were clearly frustrated Ron Paul supporters. Some of the older members were too. As the discussion continued it became clear that the purpose of this group, contrary to the printed documentation, was not toward convergence with other conservative groups nor with the Tea Party organizations.

Some of the older members invoked the Reagan/Goldwater rule, “Never speak ill of another republican.” The more vocal speakers agreed, reluctantly, to abide by that rule and broke it within minutes.

Instead of soliciting ideas for moving forward, the meeting was quickly devolving into complaints about ‘Pub state officials and other conservatives groups. Instead of building consensus, some attendees used the meeting to promote personal political views. Rather than allowing the meeting to continue to slide, a member asked to shelve discussion and elect members. 

I was not surprised to see the new leadership rest with the more vocal, younger members. I didn’t have issue with that. They were more plentiful and demographics ruled. Someone nominated me for Secretary and I quickly declined. I had not yet decided if this was a group that I was searching for and wanted to join.

The meeting broke up after two hours giving me plenty of time to drive home and do some research. I wanted to compare the written goals and purposes of the national group with the personal views of those attending the meeting. It was easy, most were on Facebook and I could visit their pages and see exactly what and who they supported.

My fears were confirmed. Instead of building support among other grassroots groups, a number of the members were seeding discord. No coalition building but creating more discord and divergence. They claimed to support freedom and liberty…as long as it didn’t interfere with their pet positions.

The group was not for me.  I wish them well and I hope they return to those principals and goals they supposedly followed. However, I doubt that will happen.

All-in-all, it was an interesting day. I did meet a few like-minded folks and I was able to meet some I’ve only conversed with via the internet. For now, I’ll continue my search.

A Rose by any other name…

There have been strange items appearing in the news today. Cuba has announced that “everyone” will pay taxes in the future. In general, the Cuban people have not paid taxes since the 1959 revolution—the country was subsidized by the former USSR. That ended in the 1990s.

With the reshuffle of their government two years ago, small, low-level capitalism was allowed in Cuba. Some were small business, a few were small private farms. The Cuban government wanted their share of those small successes.

It wasn’t enough. Now the Cuban government says everyone will pay taxes, not just those few “greedy” capitalists.  Sounds familiar, doesn’t it.  The parasite class in the US was sold a bill of goods by Obama and the dems declaring a plethora of free goodies. They, too, will discover like Cubans, that the list of freebies will end and someday the bill will come due. For the parasite class, that will begin next year with the first portions of Obamacare is implemented.


Here in Missouri, and I expect in many other states across the nation, conservative groups are gathering to form a unified platform they hope to implement in the Republican Party. Included in these groups are conservative ‘Pubs, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters.

The hoped for fusion of these groups is to create an opposing force against the tactics of the ‘Pub establishment and the rule changes the establishment forced through in last Summer’s convention. They have a long list of grievances against the ‘Pub establishment—most of them well justified.

The discussions have, for the most part, been limited to private Facebook groups and other private lists. The initial goal of these groups is to work within the party to force a bottom-up change to core the party. Most of the members but not all, recognize that unification means power. They don’t want to create a new third party. A third party doesn’t have sufficient power to enact change—witness the futility of the Libertarians and the Constitution party. No, their goals are to change the nature of the Republican party, to stop the slide towards being just another democrat party, to reform the ‘Pubs to the original conservative, small government party of Reagan and Goldwater.

I haven’t seen much unification so far. All the motivations that created the conservative splintering still exists. The Libertarians cling to their party manifesto with its legalization of drugs and emasculation of themilitary. The Ron Paul faction still has their personality cult. It is now shifting to Rand Paul with the expectation that he, Rand Paul, is a clone of his father. That’s not yet proven. And, the Constitutionalists still hate the ‘Pubs for all their supposed offenses against conservatism.

So the name calling, the backbiting and backstabbing continues. Maybe, just maybe, these divergent groups will settle their differences and merge into a single force for change in the Republican Party. I’m not confident of their success. It will be interesting to see what happens. After all, as the old story goes, “Perhaps the horse will learn to sing.”


1. strict and demanding obedience: favoring strict rules and established authority
2. demanding political obedience: belonging to or believing in a political system in which obedience to the ruling person or group is strongly enforced
au·thor·i·tar·i·an NOUN
au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism NOUN

Synonyms: strict, tyrannical, demanding, totalitarian, despotic, absolute, dictatorial, autocratic

Antonyms: liberal

Why bring this up? Well, Harry Reid is attempting to create a dictatorship in  the Senate with himself as the dictator. How? By eliminating the fulibuster…the sole remaining weapon of the ‘Pubs against a rubber stamp for Obama’s political appointments and foreign treaties. The dems were all against this when the ‘Pubs controlled the Senate prior to 2006 and they were the “obstructionists.”

Reid threatens filibuster change

McConnell hits back, says move threatens collegiality

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Monday, November 26, 2012

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Monday he will push to change Senate rules and curtail some Republican filibusters next year, setting up a major test of collegiality and power politics in the usually chummy chamber that bills itself as “the world’s most exclusive club.”

Republicans said that if Mr. Reid goes ahead, he’ll not only ruin the unique nature of the Senate, but he’ll poison chances for bipartisan cooperation just as members of the next Congress are taking their seats in January.

The back-and-forth spilled over onto the Senate floor Monday, with Mr. Reid facing off against Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s top Republican, in a rare and acrid head-to-head debate.

“This is no exaggeration. What these Democrats have in mind is a fundamental change to the way the Senate operates, for the purposes of consolidating their own power,” the Kentucky Republican said. “In the name of efficiency, they would prevent the very possibility of compromise and threaten to make the disputes of the past few years look like mere pillow fights.”

The fight is not only about the filibuster, but the way the Senate writes all of its rules — of which the filibuster is just one example.

Mr. Reid plans to use his newly expanded majority to make the changes on the first day of the new Congress next year, which is the only time rules can be adopted on a simple majority vote. Any other time, a rules change requires a two-third vote, and most major changes are done through the two-thirds method.

Mr. Reid, though, said Republican blockades of bill after bill have left him no choice but to use the majority route — dubbed the “nuclear option” in some quarters — and said voters in this month’s elections showed they want faster action in the chamber.

“We’re going to follow the rules to make a couple of minor changes to make this place more efficient, and that’s what the Senate has always been about, is revising itself to become more efficient,” Mr. Reid said, dismissing GOP “threats” as bluster and wondering, “What more could they do to us?”

If Harry Reid is successful, the minority party—the ‘Pubs, will be powerless. A simple majority—which the dems already have, will be sufficient to pass anything not already requiring 2/3rds of the Senate. And, with this rule change, those 2/3rd requirements could be changed to require simple majorities as well. That is the real danger of Reid’s proposal.

Our government is funded by a series of “continuing resolutions” not a budget. The Senate has become a democrat rubber-stamp. Obama continues to act like a dictator ignoring the Constitution whenever it prohibits his acts. And 51% of the voters lap at the public trough.

It’s going to be a rough four years.

United we stand. Divided…

Those who really know me understand that I’m not a talker.  I listen. You can pick up jewels by listening. One phrase I continually hear is the hyphenated-American—African American, Mexican-American, Asian-American and many others.

Every time I hear one of these I wonder why they believe they’re only half American?  My Father was born in the UK. My paternal grandparents were too. On that side, I’m a second generation American.  Some on my mother’s side were from Germany. We’re not sure about the rest although family lore says one of my great-grandmothers was a Blackfoot.

The point is that none of my parents nor any of my extended family thought of themselves as anything but American.  I remember seeing my Grandfather knock a man down for calling him a “Johnny Bull“. My Grandfather said he was an American and had the papers to prove it!

When the great Immigration, as some call it, occurred during the last half of the 19th Century and the first decade of the the 20th, immigrants fled their homelands coming here for a variety of reasons.  Most came here for a fresh start. They came to this nation to start anew, create and grow families. Many sent funds back to the Old Country to bring other family members to the United States. Few returned home.

My ancestors were no different. They fled a life to make a new one.

The common pursuit, once here, was to become an American—not German-American nor Polish-American nor Swedish-American, just an American. It was a personal insult to imply they were only half-American. My Grandfather didn’t hesitate to make his displeasure known with his fists.

All that has changed. For sixty years, progressives, liberals, have been working diligently to divide our people. We’re no longer Americans, no we must now be something-American. Half-American.

Historians  look at that period of our country, from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of WW1 as the period of greatest growth of our nation. People came to the United States to renew themselves and seize the opportunities available through diligence and hard work. The only thing they expected was the freedom to make the best of those opportunities.

Look at the difference now, since the end of WW2. What was once a united country is being Balkanized. There are forces within this country, call them Socialist, Marxist, Progressives, or liberals, who believe that dividing this country provides an opportunity for them to seize control. They believe they can reform the country into an image of central control—with them at the top controlling everyone else.

If one can receive favor via “entitlements” or other benefits, by being half-American, that increases division. Being different is now a benefit. And increases division. Divisiveness disrupts the common American culture. The half-Americans feel alienated and unable to relate to the core beliefs of the immigrants of a century ago…the ones who built this nation. It is easy to manipulate those alienated from the common culture.

The progressives, the elitists, cannot seize control when the country is united. No, it must be divided into groups and factions, factions who view themselves as half-Americans. They are disunited and vulnerable…and easily controlled and ruled. The country must be Balkanized for them to succeed.

United we stand. Divided we fall. I am not a half-American. I am united with that vision of our Founders and of my Grandfather. I am an American. What are you?

Thieves in the night…

There are a sundry of news items on the ‘net today. Although it’s not getting much press with the State Media, the political news is that Ron Paul says he’s not going to spend anymore money trying to win votes and delegates in the remaining primaries.

No, Ron Paul has another plan. What he can’t get through the ballot box, i.e., delegates to the ‘Pub convention this summer, he’ll use his supporters to seize in state conventions what he couldn’t win in the local caucuses.  This tactic was exposed in recent news items out of Iowa.

“I think we’re going to spend money and campaign time in Iowa making sure that we have ID’d every single delegate to the state convention and that we turn out all of our delegates to the Iowa state convention to make sure that they vote and get their voices heard,” Benton says.

The man who was elected chairman of the Iowa GOP in February is a Ron Paul supporter and former campaign aide. Ron Paul supporters now hold a majority of seats on the Iowa Republican Party’s state central committee.

“We want to get our people involved in the process,” Benton says, “and we want our people in positions of influence.” — Radio Iowa.

Ron Paul came in a distant third after Romney and Santorum in Iowa. That doesn’t matter to the Ron Paul controlled Iowa state ‘Pub committee. No, they’ll use parliamentary procedures to “pack” the convention. Apparently the plan is to disenfranchise the Romney and Santorum local delegates in favor of those who will toe the Paul party line.

We have seen such tactics here in Missouri. Ron Paul partisans seized control of a number of Missouri county caucuses in Jackson, Boone, St. Charles and other counties.  In the district caucuses, Ron Paul partisans attempted to seize control as well.  They failed. Across Missouri, Romney, followed by Santorum won most of the delegates with Ron Paul getting four and Gingrich one. 

The remaining Missouri delegates will be chosen next month at the state convention. I am already hearing rumbles that Ron Paul partisans will attempt a power play to gain more delegates. Unlike Iowa, the Missouri central committee tilts toward Romney the last I heard. But…the same delegates that attended the District Caucuses will likely attend the state convention. And, those counties controlled by Ron Paul have large delegations. There is still a chance for an ambush by the Paulbots.

Ron Paul knows he has no chance of winning anything via the ballot box. But, like any wannabe tyrant, he’ll not let such a technicality to be an obstacle. What he can’t achieve in the light of day, he’ll try to take “like a thief in the night.”

I don’t know what Paul thinks he’ll achieve. Even if he is successful, he still won’t have enough delegates to win the party nomination.  Pundits speculate that Paul wants concessions—selecting his son Rand Paul for Veep, adding items to the party plank such as an audit of the Federal Reserve or perhaps a cabinet position (Treasury?) for Paul.

Whatever the reason, his tactics, such as his supporters heckling Romney’s son in Arizona, are reminiscent of some 3rd-world dictator. Here is a quote from a Paul supporter in Arizona. Perhaps this quote is more telling about Paul’s tactics and goals than my speculation.

Paul supporters hope to disrupt conventions across the country. Their intent is to force a second vote at the national convention, in which they are not bound to Romney who won delegates in the primaries.

One young woman told the Paul supporters that they must not value the democratic process because they are trying to subvert the will of the people who mostly supported Romney. Mitt Romney won 47 percent and Ron Paul won 8.6 percent of the vote in Arizona’s primary vote. The remainder of the vote was divided between Gingrich and Santorum. — Arizona Daily Independent.

Signs of a failing nation.

As I wrote yesterday, one of the signs of a failing nation is factionalization. When the sense of national unity is broken it is nearly impossible to be repaired.  We’re seeing some signs of attempts to repair unity with the rise of the Tea Parties and conservative states confronting union socialism.  That’s a good start.

Another sign of a failing nation is the failure to secure its borders. A nation who has no clear borders is no longer a nation. Territory, land that we can say, “This is mine. I will defend what is mine,” is the core component of a nation.  Without land, the people of a nation are no more than nomadic tribes.

The Obama administration is purposely failing to establish and defend our borders.  They want the nomads to come in to increase the size of their faction. That is another step towards barbarism.  Factionalism is inconsistent with civilization.  One one hand you have a group that places its faction over that of the nation. On the other hand is a group that places its nation over that of its faction.  The military is a prime example of the latter while the democrat leadership is an example of the former.  The two are not compatible.

The republicans are not guiltless in factionalism either.  George Bush only gave lip service to protecting our borders.  He wanted to sweep illegal alien issue under the rug, to hide the issue by granting illegals amnesty.  He thought it was a no-win situation. Regardless, it was another step towards barbarism.  When you refuse to protect what is yours, you are weaker to resist that next barbarian that comes onto the scene.

A number of states are actively confronting this issue.  Arizona was the first to begin to protect their state borders after the failure of the FedGov to uphold it’s constitutionally mandated directive and the active assistance of the FedGov to circumvent its constitutional requirement.

We, in the US, are fortunate that we do have a constitution. We are also fortunate that the 2nd Amendment provides us the means to resist barbarism—even when that barbarian is our own federal government.

As I  write this comes the news that Indiana state democrats have fled to Illinois and Kentucky to block a vote that would make Indiana a Right-to-work state.  Those democrats, as well as those in Wisconsin, are holding allegiance to their faction, to their fellow barbarians at the expense of civilization. 

It will be a long battle.