Montage

It has become a liberal tactic to release potentially damaging information late on Friday or Saturday when the MSM’s attention is elsewhere…or purposely redirected. This last weekend was no different.

On today’s Drudge Report is the headline: The Hilliary Papers: Ruthless First Lady. Diane Blair, a political science professor whom Hillary Clinton once described as her “closest friend”, died in 2000. She and others collected documents during the Clinton’s campaign before Bill Clinton’s run for the Presidency in 1992. More documents were added until Blair’s death.

Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death. — The Washington Free Beacon.

A memo from those archives, under the title of, “Research on Hillary Clinton,” noted that Bill, according to pollsters, was viewed as ‘slick,’ while Hillary was viewed as ruthless. The picture the documents paint of Bill and Hillary Clinton is not complementary. Bill comes across as bungling and stupid while Hillary is portrayed as one who’d cut a throat to maintain political power.

***

A bit of bad news for Obamacare came to light over the weekend. It is another ‘unintended consequence’ that the libs are now claiming to be a feature. (Systems Designers, development and project managers are very familiar with the tactic.)

Obamacare will induce people to drop out of the work force, a recent congressional study reported.

The Congressional Budget Office report, examining Obamacare’s effects on the economy, predicted that the U.S. workforce would shrink by 2.5 million people. The cause: Low-income people get subsidies when shopping on Obamacare’s health-insurance exchanges. This makes it easier for people to afford health care without a job or by working part-time. — The Washington Examiner.

The column may be a bit difficult to understand. The bottom line is the amount of subsidies granted to ‘qualified’ applicants may influence people to maintain low incomes or drop out of the work-force completely. An income difference of $1 can mean the loss of those subsidies and increased healthcare costs of thousands of dollars per year.  That—is a disincentive to work. Why work when more money means the loss of the subsidy and higher costs of the now-required healthcare coverage.

The ‘unintended consequence’ came to light in another venue, a discussion between the head of the Congressional Budget Office and Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney. The gist? Americans now have a choice whether or not to work!

My, oh, my, how times have changed. America now has a government that views work as a trap and celebrates those who escape it.

That is the upshot of last week’s remarkable exchange over ObamaCare. It began when the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the interplay of taxes and subsidies in the law “creates a disincentive for people to work.” The report predicted the mix would lead to fewer hours worked, costing the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million jobs.

In response, President Obama’s spokesman pleaded guilty — with pride and pleasure.

“Opportunity created by affordable, quality health insurance allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, or if they will work,” Jay Carney said. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi applauded the law for freeing people from “job-lock.”

They never mentioned the implications of this distinctly Obamaish New Deal. The subsidies that enable some Americans to decide “if they will work” mean higher taxes from those who must or want to work. — The New York Post.

Job-lock. The democrats have created a new term. When I looked at the definition of the term in Wiki, I noticed the page was last updated February 9, 2014. Yes, the libs must keep ‘job-lock’ up to date.

***

When I was in the Air Force, one of the first things I read as it became available was the Air Force Times. Like the Air Force, each branch of the military had its paper, the Army Times, the Navy Times, and the Marine Corps Times. There may have been a Coast Guard Times, too, although I never saw one.

One reason why the ‘Times was so popular was that it was published by an independent, semi-private company. The current ‘Times are now owned by Gannet.

By semi-private, I mean the military branches tried, often, to control the content of the ‘Times. They failed each time. Many retired and active military members were contributors to the ‘Times. Military retirees often held paid and advisory positions to the various ‘Times editions. They knew where the bodies were buried and used that knowledge…frequently to the embarrassment of the particular branch.

The success of the ‘Times is its support of the lowest members of the military, not its highest. Those supporters insure truth and accuracy in the stories and reporting. The various ‘Times papers have credibility—more credibility than the military hierarchy and that difference in credibility is leading to conflict again.

Once again, the military hierarchy is attempting to control the content of the ‘Times…the Marine Corps Times in this particular case. I predict this effort will eventually fail, too. The last time a service branch tried to control the ‘Times, the paper was smuggled onto military bases around the world. Like Prohibition, banning the ‘Times will fail.

Marine Corps Times first casualty in headquarters’ war to ‘professionalize’

Independent newspaper does not conform to new Marine Corps message, brass says

Feb. 9, 2014 – 05:05PM, By Lance M. Bacon Staff writer

Marines leaf through a copy of Marine Corps Times during some downtime at a patrol base in Afghanistan's Helmand province. The newspaper, which throughout the last year has investigated allegations of wrongdoing involving the service's top general, has been targeted by Marine Corps headquarters as part of a new initiative to 'professionalize' areas where the publication is sold.

Marines leaf through a copy of Marine Corps Times during some downtime at a patrol base in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. The newspaper, which throughout the last year has investigated allegations of wrongdoing involving the service’s top general, has been targeted by Marine Corps headquarters as part of a new initiative to ‘professionalize’ areas where the publication is sold. (Brennan Linsley / The Associated Press)

Marine Corps leaders have ordered the independent Marine Corps Times newspaper removed from its prominent newsstand location at base exchange stores worldwide and placed instead in areas away from checkout lines, where it is harder to find and fewer copies are available.

The move raises troubling questions about motive and closely follows a directive prohibiting commanders from using budget funds to buy Marine Corps Times and a number of other publications.

Marine Corps Times is widely recognized for its comprehensive coverage of the Corps, focusing on everything from career tracks, to pay and benefits, family and spouse issues, and employment after leaving the military.

Throughout much of the past year, the paper has published dozens of articles as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations the service’s commandant, Gen. Jim Amos, abused his authority to ensure Marines were punished for an embarrassing war-zone scandal. Numerous reports have captured the attention of mainstream media outlets, including NPR, CNN and Time magazine, among several others.

Spokesmen for the commandant’s office would not answer questions about whether Amos or his staff were aware of or involved in the decision to relocate the newspaper, but a source with knowledge of the new directive said it was approved with the commandant’s knowledge.

“It is no secret [in the Pentagon] that the commandant does not like Marine Corps Times,” the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The commandant’s office punted all questions, including whether Amos was involved in the decision to move Marine Corps Times from prominent display in the exchanges,to Manpower & Reserve Affairs, which has oversight of the exchange. A spokeswoman for Manpower & Reserve Affairs said the paper was moved as part of a plan to “professionalize” the front of the exchanges.

As every serviceman and veteran knows, weasels exist at all levels. In this case, it is the Commandant.

***

One last bit. The ‘conservative’ rankings of Congress was released this weekend. Claire McCaskill was ranked 50 out of the 100 Senators. It’s well known that McCaskill voted with the ‘Pubs on issues that had no chance to pass, hence her rating. Missouri’s other Senator, Roy Blunt, supposedly a ‘Pub, was ranked 42, not far above liberal McCaskill. The difference is that McCaskill manipulated her votes to appear more conservative. Blunt didn’t.

I understand that primary opponents to Blunt are forming all across Missouri. It couldn’t happen to be better Senator—and that’s a point. We don’t need two liberal voting Senators and that is exactly what we have had. Time for Blunt to go back to obscurity.

Continuing on a theme…

The theme I speak of in today’s post title is the civil war within the GOP between the Washington establishment and the Tea Party, conservatives, and other grassroot organizations throughout the states. Karl Rove, using his Crossroads PAC, started the war several years ago. He attacked conservatives claiming they couldn’t win. He supported Romney against other conservative candidates.

He was successful. Romney lost in 2012, Obama won.

Karl Rove is still here. He continues to stir up division within the party, supporting McConnell, Boehner and other establishment RINOs against conservatives and attacking the primary opponents of establishment candidates across the country.

The establishment isn’t keeping the war secret. No, they’re proud to be known for supporting the democrat agenda saying, “we don’t want to make waves in an election year.” They ignore the political fact that during an election year is the time to make waves, to score points against the dems, else, what difference is there between the dems and the ‘Pubs if the ‘Pubs continues to support the democrat agenda?

The likely result will be a repeat of 2012 when enough conservatives stay home. When there is no difference between the two parties, what difference does it make who wins? The nation will still continue on the path of authoritarianism, and toward a one-party dictatorship like that of the old Soviet Union.

I’m not the only one who has observed the civil war. IBD, in an editorial this week, agrees.

Republicans Shouldn’t Run Away From The Tea Party

Posted 

Politics: Republican Party leaders seem willing, anxious even, to walk away from the Tea Party, certain that such bedrock support will brand the GOP as extremist in voters’ eyes. If anything, polls show, the opposite is true.

With 10 months to go before the crucial midterm elections, Republicans understandably will try to avoid screwing up their chances for victory.

Democrats have taken to vilifying any Republican who actually stands for something — such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — as a captive of what they’d like to label as the far-right fringe.

This can be seen in the efforts of Sen. Charles Schumer of New York — the Democrats’ top political strategist — to, in the words of The Hill, “poison the Tea Party by driving a wedge between its rich funders and its blue-collar rank and file.”

This kind of hardball has Republicans in a bit of a panic. And in case you’re wondering, it’s a big reason why they supported the pork-filled $1.1 trillion spending bill this month, and why GOP leaders are talking about legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.

But before they sell their souls to political expediency, they might want to look at a few recent polls that suggest the small-government, conservative ideals of the Tea Party are quite popular. To wit:

• A Quinnipiac Poll finds 53% believe the Obama administration has been incompetent at running the federal government. And 56% oppose ObamaCare, the Democrats’ signature accomplishment since 2008.

• In a recent Gallup Poll, almost two-thirds of Americans said the U.S. government has gotten too big and too powerful, and are unhappy with how it works.

• A Fox News Poll found 62% believing income inequality is acceptable “because that’s just how the economy works.” Another 21% agreed inequality was bad, but that the government “shouldn’t get involved.”

Get the picture? Average Americans show a strong preference for smaller, more-accountable government. And which group most closely fits that description in its basic beliefs? Why, the Tea Party, of course.

Republicans would be wise to heed the people’s clear will and not fall for Democrat ploys to make them feel “extreme.” If anything, it’s the Democrats, now a party of the far left, who are the extremists.

Republicans shouldn’t look at them and say, “Me, too.” As a statesman once said, Americans deserve a choice, not an echo.

“Americans deserve a choice, not an echo.” What a closing statement. I wish I could come up with ones of that caliber.

***

Other news today is a reflection on the liberals new attacks against capitalism in favor of “income equality.” Income, whether to individuals or corporations, is dependent on a single statement: Wages and salaries are dependent on the revenue the individual brings to his employer.

Income has no relationship to individual worth. Everyone has worth. Income is driven by the value an employee provides to his or her employer. The more value an individual provides, the more income he should receive. If not, find another job using the skills and training you received from your prior employer. Note: you aren’t likely to gain any marketable skills flippin’ burgers. Choose a job or career, wisely.

McDonald’s Fighting To Be ‘Relevant’ To Customers, CEO Concedes

NEW YORK (AP) — McDonald’s is losing customers, as the world’s biggest hamburger chain struggles to attract diners with its higher-priced sandwiches and new offerings like Mighty Wings.

“We’ve lost some of our customer relevance,” CEO Don Thompson conceded Thursday on a call with analysts.

The Oak Brook, Ill.-based company reported disappointing sales for its fourth quarter, as fewer customers visited its established restaurants. Guest counts at those locations fell nearly 2 percent globally and 1.6 percent in the U.S. in 2013, according to a regulatory filing. And McDonald’s expects some challenges to persist this year.

There’s more to the article, you can read it here. The point I’m making is this: consider McDonald’s position if the minimum wage is raised to $15, almost twice the minimum wage in most states. How would that increase in the cost of doing business affect McDonald’s plans for more service, more value for the customer’s dollar?

When income, as it is happening to McDonald’s, goes down, the last thing the company needs is more expenses. It matters not if the increased expenses come from higher taxes, federal mandates like Obamacare (when McDonald’s waiver expires) or increased wages, such as would occur if the minimum wage is raised. Increased cost, with little or no improvement in revenue equals reduced or no profits.

McDonald’s employs 1.7 million people around the world. It’s certainly more than those employed in California and the other socialist states in the nation who would rather destroy an employer affecting hundreds of thousands, rather than admit their agenda does not work.

 

No, what income equality creates is not higher incomes, it is less. Why? Because with the increased employee cost, McDonald’s only choice is to layoff people and reduce their cost of doing business to a level that will allow them to remain profitable. Without profits, there is no McDonalds.

But, that is inconsequential according to the levelers who drive income equality. They would rather see McDonald’s cease to exist than admit income equality, like all such socialist schemes, doesn’t work.

A new front

A new front in the civil war within the GOP has appeared in the Heartland. Mitch McConnell and his NRSC fired the opening shot at Nebraska conservative candidate Ben Sasse. Sasse, a well known conservative and healthcare policy expert, has drawn McConnell’s attention. The NRSC is now channeling funds to Sasse’s opponent.

Ben Sasse, the conservative candidate in Nebraska on the most recent cover of National Review and who has the backing of the Senate Conservatives Fund, RedState, and others, suddenly finds Mitch McConnell and the NRSC holding fundraisers for his opponent. Sasse, it should be noted, is widely considered a brainiac opponent of Obamacare and healthcare policy expert. — Red State.

Another attack was initiated against Jamestown Associates who are consultants to conservative republican candidates.

…yesterday, the National Republican Congressional Committee blackballed Jamestown Associates from helping elect Republicans. The NRCC is joining the NRSC in attacking Jamestown. Why? Because Jamestown Associates has been working with conservative candidates the House and Senate GOP leadership opposes. — Red State.

How does McConnell and the establishment expect to win new ‘Pub seats in Congress when they are attacking their fellow republicans? Not surprisingly, the answer is: emulate the democrats—instead of repealing Obamacare, McConnell and his henchmen claim their aim is to ‘fix’ not repeal Obamacare.

Republicans Begin Laying Ground Work to Walk Away From Obamacare Opposition

 

Erick Erickson (Diary)  | 

Conservative and Republican affiliated groups have started the 2014 assault against Democrats who support Obamacare. At the very same time, it is increasingly clear Republicans are laying the groundwork to abandon their opposition to Obamacare.

The Business Roundtable, which has a great relationship with Republican Leaders, is now listing Obamacare as an entitlement worth preserving.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former economic advisor to John McCain and who opposed passage of Obamacare, has started a think tank premised on keeping, but fixing, Obamacare. Holtz-Eakin has the ear of Republican leaders. In 2009, Mitch McConnell appointed him to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

The Chamber of Commerce is declaring it will work to fix, not repeal, Obamacare. In fact, just last week the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, “The administration is obviously committed to keeping the law in place, so the chamber has been working pragmatically to fix those parts of Obamacare that can be fixed.”

Concurrent to this, the Chamber of Commerce has begun funding candidates to beat conservatives in Republican primaries…

The establishment has gone so far to betrayal ‘Pub conservatives that they have aligned the NRSC, with the willing concurrence of the NRCC, with a democrat, and democrat funded, organization.

The Republican Main Street Partnership, headed by former Congressman LaTourette — who is a friend of Speaker John Boehner — is working with the Chamber and party leaders to target conservatives the party leadership finds troublesome. LaTourette has been parroting talking points from the National Republican Senatorial Committee about the Senate Conservatives Fund, Club for Growth, and others.

You see, the ‘Republican’ Main Street Partnership is funded by democrats: several unions, an Indian tribe, and a well-heeled democrat contributor. See my post from yesterday.

These act lead to my next segment of today’s post. In my mail, yesterday, was an envelope from the NRC wanting me to renew my ‘membership’ and contribute to the party.  I tore it up and trashed it.

I will not contribute to the NRC. I will contribute to specific candidates whom I think worthy of my money. I may contribute to the local ‘Pub organizations. I may attend their fund raisers, I may contribute directly to their election campaigns. Maybe.

I will impose litmus tests for every candidate. I am personal friends with some at the local and state level. I will help them remain in office because I know they will pass my litmus test.

For the rest of the ‘Pubs, they will have to work to get my support, my money, and my vote. It is very likely, like so many did in 2012, that my ballot in 2014 will have blank spaces next to some offices. By blank space I mean I skipped voting for that office.

Unless there is a winning conservative primary opponent next summer, the 4th Congressional District may be one of those offices that I will skip. Unless Ms Hartzler renounces her allegiance to the Washington establishment and proves, by her voting record, that it is a real renouncement, I will not be voting for her in 2014.

I supported and endorsed her in 2010 and 2012. No more. When there is no difference in the ‘Pub establishment and their willing helpers to the democrats, why bother voting for that office?

I’ve been a republican all my adult life. I’ve voted republican for 45 years. I still am a republican, a conservative…but my party is no longer.

Emboldened Tea Party

Today’s title is taken from a headline that appeared in the Washington Times. The dems and leftists think the Tea Party was heavily damaged in the debacle that just occurred in Washington. Boehner’s and McConnell’s surrender was evidence of that, thought the dems.

They were wrong.

If anything, the antics of Boehner, McConnell and Reid helped clear the decks for 2014. We, the Tea Party and conservatives, now know who is committed to conservative principles and who are only committed to themselves.

Boehner thinks he is in a ‘safe’ district. The dems keep him in office just as much as the GOP establishment clique that prevents any strong opposition to Boehner. That could easily change if a strong independent or GOP candidate could get on the ticket—preferable a GOP opponent who could remove Boehner in a primary election. Boehner is blessed with not one, not two, but, now, three opponents seeking to oust him, two in the upcoming GOP primary election.

One such opponent, J.D. Winteregg, is a school teacher from Troy, Ohio. Winteregg has received a number of endorsements from local Tea Party organizations.

Boehner to face Tea Party challenger in Republican primary

Staff Reporter- Dayton Business Journal

A third local person has thrown a hat in the ring to challenge John Boehner, R-West Chester, for Congress in 2014.

J.D. Winteregg, a school teacher from Troy, Ohio, announced his campaign against Boehner this month.

Active in local tea party groups and having received the endorsement of board members of several north Cincinnati Tea Party groups, Winteregg says his limited political experience means “his ideas truly represent the people in (Ohio’s eighth Congressional district).”

Among his political positions, Winteregg advocates for defunding Obamacare, a limited free market Capitalist system approach to the economy, and says the government should focus on forming public-private partnerships to shift dollars supporting economic growth from tax money to private investment.

Winteregg is the third local person who has announced his plans to challenge Boehner in the May 2014 primary. Matthew Trisler, a truck driver from Tipp City, is running on a constitutional conservative platform, while Butler County businessman Eric Gurr also announced he would challenge Boehner in the Republican primary.

McConnell has opposition, too.

Senate Conservatives Fund endorses Matt Bevin over Mitch McConnell

Oct. 18, 2013 11:22 AM

The Senate Conservatives Fund said Friday it has endorsed Republican Matt Bevin over U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s 2014 U.S. Senate race.

The group has been toying with the endorsement for some time. It has aired television commercials critical of McConnell as not conservative enough and it recently polled its members asking if it should officially back Bevin, a tea party-favored Louisville businessman.

“We have interviewed a lot of candidates this year and Matt Bevin is one of the very best. He’s principled, passionate, and has Ted Cruz-like courage,” said Matt Hoskins, the group’s executive director, referring to Cruz, the U.S. senator from Texas, who led the fight to shut down government in an effort to defund the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The endorsement comes just days after McConnell, the Senate minority leader, brokered a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, to reopen government and raise the debt ceiling before the U.S. defaulted on its debt.

In response to the McConnell-Reid deal, Bevin said Wednesday: “When the stakes are highest, Mitch McConnell can always be counted on to sell out conservatives.”

The group lambasted McConnell the same night as the shutdown-ending vote, accusing him of receiving a “Kentucky kickback” because the bill contained a higher $2.9 billion spending limit for the controversial Olmsted Dam and locks on the Ohio River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Congressional leaders later rebutted that accusation.

Boehner and McConnell are not the only two RINOs who are receiving opposition in the coming primaries. All of those who voted to support Obama, Reid, and Obamacare, like our MO Senator, Roy Blunt, have marked themselves. Blunt still has a number of years left to his term. Others, however, do not.

A call to arms: Emboldened tea party moves to finish off weak Republicans

Mississippi senator first to face challenge

By Seth McLaughlin, The Washington Times, Thursday, October 17, 2013

Far from chastened by the debt debate, tea partyers and conservative groups signaled Thursday they’ve concluded they didn’t lose, but rather were sabotaged from within by weak Republicans — and they took the first steps to oust one of them.

Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel announced he would challenge U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran in the Republican primary next year, a day after the GOP’s senior senator voted to end the 16-day government shutdown and grant President Obama more borrowing authority.

Mr. McDaniel immediately saw a flood of support from the outside groups that had rallied against this week’s debt and spending agreement.

“Our country can’t afford any more bad votes that stem from old friends and back-room deals,” said Daniel Horowitz, deputy political director of the Madison Project. “And as witnessed from the recent budget battle against Obamacare, we cannot win against Democrats if we don’t grow our conservative bench in the Senate.”

For the past two weeks, the deep divisions within the GOP have been on very public display.

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and their allies pushed to withhold all government spending unless Mr. Obama agreed to cancel Obamacare, while party leaders called that a losing strategy and tried to come up with alternatives.

On Thursday, the GOP accepted defeat, passing a bill that gives Mr. Obama a “clean” bill to reopen government through January, and to raise debt through at least February.

A majority of Republicans supported the deal in the Senate, but the situation was reversed in the House, where Cruz allies refused to sign off on a series of plans put forward by GOP leaders to end the stalemate.

The article continues on a second page noting Sarah Palin’s support for change in the “permanent political class” in Washington.

The result of the acts in Washington this month, while a setback for conservatives, is not capitulation. Instead, it is just the beginning. The Tea Party was fundamental is winning the House in 2010. Now, our goal is to widen that control in the House, eliminating the establishment stalwarts, replacing them with strong conservatives and to take the Senate from dem control,  dumping Harry Reid into the waste-bin of history.

How did we get here and are we winning?

The short answer for today’s title is, by bumbling and…maybe, yes. Two articles appeared today in the internet news. One was an interview given by a House ‘Pub leader, name withheld, and the other was an article in Business Week. I have no reason to believe either are incorrect.

To the first question, how did we get her? The ‘Pub House leadership, Boehner, Cantor, et. al., were incredibly stupid over the summer. They had been working deals all through June, July and August with Harry Reid. The fix was in. Boehner would cut funding for Obamacare in the CR and Reid would block it. Boehner would then respond with a gimme—cut the medical device tax and delay implementation of Obamacare and Reid would buy that and all would be well, the rest of Obamacare would be funded like the dems wanted.

Surprise! Surprise! Reid blocked the second offer, too. He said all or nothing. While the back and forth continued, time ran out and the shutdown occurred. Byron York recounts an interview with one of those ‘Pub House leaders. We entered the shutdown like the Union and Confederacy accidentally bumping into one another and starting the Battle of Gettysburg.

GOP congressman: We stumbled into war over Obamacare

By BYRON YORK | OCTOBER 6, 2013 AT 3:02 PM

 On Thursday afternoon, as the government shutdown entered its third day, a Republican member of the House sat down with a group of reporters in an office building not far from the Capitol. He spoke on the condition that he be referred to only as a House lawmaker, but without betraying the agreement it’s fair to say his was a perspective well worth listening to. The congressman walked the group through a set of issues involved in the shutdown — the continuing resolution, House-Senate relations, the coming debt limit talks, and more — but what was perhaps most striking was his frank talk about how the GOP leadership got itself into its current predicament. What became clear after an hour of discussion was that the House Republican leadership’s position at the moment is the result of happenstance, blundering, and a continuing inability to understand the priorities of both GOP and Democratic colleagues.

The congressman began with an anecdote from the Civil War. “I would liken this a little bit to Gettysburg, where a Confederate unit went looking for shoes and stumbled into Union cavalry, and all of a sudden found itself embroiled in battle on a battlefield it didn’t intend to be on, and everybody just kept feeding troops into it,” the congressman said. “That’s basically what’s happening now in a political sense. This isn’t exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have, but it’s the fight that’s here.”

When the September 30 deadline for funding the government was still weeks away, the lawmaker explained, he never thought Republicans and Democrats would fail to reach agreement on a continuing resolution. “To be honest with you, I did not think we’d be in a government shutdown situation,” he said. “I’m surprised that we’re here.” The congressman frankly admitted that he never saw the intensity of the party base’s opposition to Obamacare that came to the fore in the August recess. “I think that probably the Cruz phenomenon had a lot to do with that,” he said, referring to the campaign by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz to raise support for an effort to defund Obamacare. “I think it disrupted everybody’s plans, both in the administration and certainly the House Republican leadership.”

As the congressman told the story, as August progressed — and Cruz, along with a few Senate colleagues, the Heritage Foundation, and others, ran a high-profile campaign to stir public opinion against Obamacare — the House GOP leadership was mostly unaware of what was going on. “They got surprised a little bit by the Obamacare thing,” the lawmaker said. “This was something that blew up in August. Nobody really saw it coming — probably should have a little bit, I’m not being critical of anybody in that regard, on either side of this — but it just happened.”

Even after the events of August, and the rise of Cruz forced House Republicans to take notice, GOP leaders had little understanding of the course that the conflict, both inside the House Republican conference and with Senate Democrats, would eventually take. “I never thought defund, and honestly, I never thought delay, would work,” the lawmaker said. “I think the Democrats very much need the exchanges to come on and work to finally create a constituency for [Obamacare]…so I never thought they would agree on that.”

At this point Boehner’s carefully engineered plans went awry. Reid continued to insist on no negotiations, following Obama’s orders.

Still, the lawmaker thought Senate Democrats, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, would make some sort of concession on a lesser aspect of Obamacare. “I do think, though, when Boehner sent over delay and [repeal of the] medical device tax, I think he thought he’d probably get back medical device, and that would have probably been enough right there,” the congressman said. But Reid and the Democrats steadfastly refused to consider any change to Obamacare, surprising Republicans again.

“Instead, it’s no, we’re not going to negotiate, we’re not going to negotiate, we’re not going to negotiate,” the lawmaker said. “Which means effectively you’re going to try to humiliate the Speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he’ll be then? You’re putting the guy in a position where he’s got nothing to lose, because you’re not giving him anything to win.”

The result of Reid’s intransigence, coming after multiple Republican miscalculations, was that both sides dug in. Whatever chance there had been of a settlement before — and there really wasn’t much of one, once the events of August began to unfold — there was zero possibility of a deal as September 30 approached. So the shutdown that House leadership never expected came. And it lasted more than the few days some predicted. And it is still going on as the October 17 deadline for raising the nation’s debt ceiling approaches. The crisis that House Republican leaders didn’t see coming is now consuming them, with unpredictable consequences. “We’re not in a situation that has been planned out and war-gamed and plotted, OK?” said the congressman. “We stumbled into a situation like Gettysburg that nobody planned, and all of a sudden each side is feeding more troops into it, and it’s turning into a much bigger deal.” — Washington Examiner.

The ‘Pub leadership also hadn’t factored the massive pressure generated by their rank and file—not only from the conservative Representatives, but from the Tea Party organizations and the masses of conservative voters.

The second question in the title is still unanswered. If you listen to all the State Media organs, the ‘Pubs are losing at every point. If you listen to some recognized business analysts, the ‘Pub may be winning.

Five Reasons Republicans Think They’re Winning the Shutdown

By October 04, 2013

Until minutes before the clock struck midnight on Monday, it looked as if House Republicans might lose their nerve and pass a clean continuing resolution to avert a shutdown. Such was the pressure from such moderate Republican representatives as Pete King of New York and Devin Nunes of California, some not-so-moderate Republicans too afraid to speak out publicly, and Republican pundits who recognized that the party has no strategy for victory. In the end, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his caucus went ahead and jumped. So far, they’ve survived.

It may well be that this is a Wile E. Coyote moment, the kind that ends with a precipitous plunge to the bottom of the canyon. But it’s clear that the swift, severe blowback from voters that might have chastened Republicans and forced a hasty retreat hasn’t materialized. During August, I spent a lot of time with the Republican hardliners who forced the shutdown. I checked back with some of them on Monday and Tuesday to get their take as to how things are going.

They’re in good spirits. Here are five reasons I heard for why they think they’re winning this standoff:

1. Markets have remained calm. As clocks ticked toward shutdown, there was some trepidation that the stock market might plunge on Tuesday morning, as it did after the House rejected the first TARP vote back in 2008. Instead the Dow Jones industrial average rose 62 points.

2. They’re getting “messaging wins” against Democrats. While the shutdown is ostensibly over the GOP’s demand to delay Obamacare, the Republican House has forced a series of votes—such as today’s to restore veterans’ benefits—that are uncomfortable for Democrats because they can’t do the politically popular thing and vote “yes” without undermining their party’s imperative to hold firm.

3. Harry Reid can’t help himself. On Wednesday, the Senate Majority Leader, who is a notoriously clumsy and undisciplined speaker, seemed to callously dismiss the plight of some children who are being denied cancer treatment at the National Institutes for Health while the government is shut down. You can watch the clip here.

4. Obamacare is off to a rocky start. On Tuesday, the health-care exchanges that allow people to sign up for insurance were officially unveiled—and promptly crashed. There still appear to be major technical problems days later. Ironically, news of the shutdown itself overshadowed these snafus, which is probably a break for the White House. But given how this whole mess was driven by Republicans’ insistence that Obamacare would be a disaster, they are encouraged to see this trouble.

5. Obama looks nervous. This one’s a matter of interpretation, as several of the conservatives I spoke with willingly conceded. But they took the president’s interview with the New York Times‘ John Harwood, in which Obama warned that Wall Street should not be complacent about the prospect of default, as an attempt to spook the markets. (I kind of did, too.) Obama would do this, they believe, only if he was getting nervous. On Thursday, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 137 points.

So who is correct? The MSM Obama propaganda organs or Bloomberg Business News? I’d like to believe Bloomberg but no one, at this point, really knows. Erick Erickson of Red State is another who thinks we’re winning.

What we do know is that the big battle hasn’t yet arrived. On October 17, 2013, we will have reached the national debt limit (if we haven’t already and Obama hasn’t told anyone.) Boehner has said that any legislation that raises the debt limit will include defunding Obamacare (something I find hard to believe given Boehner’s cowardly record.)

Mark Levin believes Obama will use the 14th Amendment to arbitrarily raise the debt limit and continue funding Obamacare. ABC News echoes that warning. The ‘Pubs are, so far, ignoring his warnings.

Ted Cruz has pressured Boehner to cut Obamacare from the debt limit talks and has become the de facto leader of the House providing leadership to the younger House conservatives that Boehner has not. It’s not surprising the article below gives credit to both. Boehner is grasping at any straw to keep his Speakership, a position that is endangered by his ineptitude.

John Boehner, Ted Cruz: Upcoming debt-ceiling vote will have conditions

By David Eldridge, The Washington Times, Sunday, October 6, 2013

House Speaker John A. Boehner and other Republicans made it clear Sunday they expect compromises from Democrats on spending in exchange for raising the country’s debt ceiling.

“We’re not going to pass a clean debt-limit increase. I told the president there’s no way we’re going to pass one,” Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The votes are not in the House to pass a clean debt limit. And the president is risking default by not having a conversation with us.”

Sen. Ted Cruz echoed the speaker’s comments and pushed back at President Obama, who has dismissed demands for concessions as blackmail and insisted repeatedly that he will not negotiate with Republicans over the current government shutdown or the upcoming debt-ceiling vote.

“The debt ceiling historically has been among the best leverage that Congress has to rein in the executive,” Mr. Cruz, Texas Republican, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“Since 1978, we’ve raised the debt ceiling 55 times. A majority of those times — 28 times — Congress has attached very specific and stringent requirements,” he said. “Many of the most significant spending restraints — things like Gramm-Rudman, things like sequestration — came through the debt ceiling. So the president’s demand to jack up the nation’s credit card, with no limits, no constraints, it’s not reasonable to me.”

I don’t believe Obama will cave. He can’t and still maintain any credibility. He’s willing to create another Constitutional crises believing the ‘Pubs will, once again, cave to his and Reid’s demands.

However, this time, the country is becoming more and more united in their opposition to the tyrannical acts of a government out of control. If Obama follows through with his threats, I can foresee acts of open rebellion.

Just what would Obama do if several million protesters arrived at Washington, DC, not to gather at the Mall, but to gather at the White House and the Capitol building? Obama, the leadership of both parties and the DC government would all collectively panic. It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to know what would happen next.

Third Parties

To the best of my memory, there has only been one successful third party in the history of the United States—the Republican Party. There has been many attempts, such as Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, commonly known as the Bull Moose Party in 1912, Thomas J. Anderson’s American Party in 1976, and Ross Perot’s ‘Independent’ party in 1992. Neither Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas J. Anderson, nor Ross Perot, were successful. Instead, these three third party candidates insured the election of Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. How? They sucked away votes that would have gone to the Republican candidate.

If a third party arose today, would circumstances in the next Presidential election be any different? Probably not. Presidential elections are determined by the highest number of votes. It’s is highly unlikely that any number of minor parties could combine and gather sufficient votes to win.

Control of Congress, however, does not have to be a binary decision—dem or ‘pub. Coalitions can exist, and control Congress.

The Republican Party evolved from the disintegration of the Whig Party in 1856. The Kansas-Nebraska Act divided the Whigs over support for slavery and the creation of new slave states. The Whigs had lost their vision and their core during the slavery debates of that time. The anti-slavery elements of the Whigs created the Republican Party that, in 1860, elected Lincoln for President.

The Whig part died over slavery. The Republican party is teetering, perhaps on its death bed, over socialism and big government. Like the Whigs, the Republican establishment has lost its vision.

In my last post, I said the Republican party is dissolving. It hasn’t broken up yet. But, taking that thought further, how could such a dissolution occur?

There are a number of scenarios that could trigger the breakup. One, that I think is likely, is the public formation of a conservative faction within the Republicans in Washington. We know there are conservatives, all we need do is to watch their voting records. They haven’t, yet, created a voting bloc.

As an example, what if Cruz, Lee, Paul, maybe Rubio and others, like those who supported Ted Cruz’s “long speech” last week, were to form a…let’s call it The Tea Party Caucus. A caucus who would examine each voting issue, whether it is the Continuing Resolution, the Debt Limit, or other controversial issues, and determine how they would vote—as a bloc. That would be a first step towards a third party.

The caucus would divide the conservatives from RINOs like McConnell, McCain, Graham, Cornyn, and others like them in the House. The Tea Party Caucus would vote enbloc. They would present candidates for Congressional offices like Speaker and Majority/Minority Leader. They would form intra and extra-party coalitions to wrest control from the establishment of both parties. I note that Mancin (D-WV) has voted very conservatively for a democrat, often against his party leadership. There are a few more dems like him that may slip away from that democrat dictatorship in Washington.

Come the next national election, the establishment of both party would attempt to remove these conservatives during the primary. At this point, if the establishment blocked conservatives during the primary process, or in the primary election, it is quite possible, the conservatives would run as independents—perhaps creating a real Tea Party or whatever name they chose.

It would be a critical decision. Historically, new parties lose their first elections as did the Republicans in 1856 and the American Party in 1972, 1976 and 1980. The Republicans survived and won in 1860. The American Party failed each time and faded away.

Would the new Tea Party political machine fail too? Perhaps, if there aren’t enough officeholders and candidates, and public, grassroots voters to sustain the new party. If the bigger conservative names like Cruz, Lee, Paul and the others move enmass to the new party, the probability of it surviving is much, much greater. The new party would have existing officeholders in the Senate, some would win seats in the House, others would win as ‘Pubs or Dems and vote as a coalition alongside the new conservative Tea Party Congressmen. Another successful election cycle with more officeholders as members of the new party or aligned politically with them and the new third party would remain as a voter option against the big government dem and ‘Pub parties.

Is this a viable scenario? I have no idea. I’m no political pundit, just a retired engineer with a taste for history and political trends. Will something happen? Yes. Every day brings more evidence of the disintegration of the Republicans. Just look at the antics over defunding Obamacare. The Senate ‘Pubs betrayed their constituents, again, allowing Reid to reinstate Obamacare funding. The CR went back to the House where Boehner assured the funding for Obamacare while cutting a minor tax of medical devices and delaying some of the Obamacare deadlines. The ‘Pub establishment of both houses of Congress has not endorsed funding Obamacare.

The Republican establishment sided with the dems to protect Obamacare. The one beneficial result is that we now know explicitly, who are our ‘Pub Senate traitors. Here is Missouri, a Facebook group, “Replace Roy Blunt,” doubled its membership within hours of Blunt’s vote to allow Reid to reinstate Obamacare funding.

These are the 25 Republicans who voted with Reid to invoke cloture on the CR:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Jeff Chiesa (R-NJ)
Daniel Coats (R-IN)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
John Thune (R-SD)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

CNS News.

The Cloture vote had 25 establishment ‘Pubs supporting Harry Reid and 19 ‘Pubs who supported Cruz and Lee. Nineteen potential members of a new conservative party. Let’s remember in the coming elections, who supported us, the conservative base, and who, like Roy Blunt, didn’t and supported Harry Reid against us.

Liberalism in the news

The lead story for today is another example of liberal agendas. This time in a public library. For years, the Hudson Falls Free Library, NY, had a summer reading program. It was limited to school children. The one who read the most books won. It was a competition.

Tyler Weaver, age 9, won this year by reading 63 books in six weeks. The library director decided that instead of awarding the prize to Tyler, the winner would be drawn from a hat, “to make it fair.”  You see, Tyler had won five years in a row. That unset the library director.

Lita Casey, who worked as an aide at the Hudson Falls Free Library for 28 years, said she was “stunned” after a library board member called her with the bad news on Monday night. — New York Daily News.

The news of the rule change was leaked and the controversy began.

Library Director Marie Gandron, wanted to change the rules to end the child’s winning streak. Gandron reportedly said the boy “hogs” the contest and should “step aside.” — New York Daily News.

Casey objected. When TV news crews and international reporters arrived. The library board acted. Gandron was suddenly gone after 41 years at the library. But that wasn’t all. Lita Casey was told she was fired too, after 28 years as a reading aid. When Casey asked why she was fired, she was ignored. I suspect Casey was fired because she objected when Gandron tried to implement her “redistribution of achievement.” Gandron created the controversy and was rightly fired. Casey objected to Gandron’s act of tyranny and the library board could not allow that.

Just another day in a liberal paradise.

***

What goes around, comes around. In this case, it’s to come to Chief Justice Roberts.

Exclusive: Rand Paul wants Chief Justice Roberts, all federal workers, to enroll in Obamacare

12:40 AM 09/23/2013

Arguing federal workers should not get special treatment, Rand Paul says he does not want taxpayers subsidizing the personal health-care plans of any federal employee — including Chief Justice John Roberts — anymore.

With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as President Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told The Daily Caller on Sunday that he’s going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.

Paul’s proposal — outlawing any special exemptions for government employees — would mean all federal workers would have to purchase health insurance on the new Obamacare exchanges instead of getting taxpayer-funded subsidies. Some critics say those subsidies amount to special treatment. The Obamacare health insurance exchange opens Oct 1.

“My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told TheDC by phone on Sunday from Mackinac Island in Michigan, where he won a straw poll of potential Republican candidates for president in 2016.

“See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer,” Paul said. “And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.”

Roberts famously voted to uphold the constitutionality of Obama’s unpopular health-care law when it went before the Supreme Court last year.

Paul’s constitutional amendment says no federal employees should get special exemptions from laws. The senator also plans to push a proposal requiring that Congress and all federal employees rely on Obamacare for their insurance.

His proposal comes after outrage from conservatives about a so-called “exemption” for members of Congress and their staff from Obamacare.

There’s much more at the Daily Caller website, go and read the rest of the story…like the ‘Pub Senator who created the exemption.

***

Abuses of power. We seem to see more and more examples, a ground-swell of political, prosecutorial and judicial abuses of power. The article below fell into my email box this morning. It was triggered by the news of Tom DeLay’s acquittal. There there were other instances where federal prosecutors abused their authority as well.

High-profile cases show a pattern of misuse of prosecutorial powers

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro — Special to The Washington Times

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Despite the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy prohibition, federal civil rights statutes enable U.S. prosecutors to pursue felony charges against a defendant in limited instances even if they have been acquitted of underlying state crimes.

Evidence in the New Orleans case was compelling, and the officers were convicted, but U.S. District Court Judge Kurt Engelhardt ordered a new trial last week, saying the government “engaged in a secret public relations campaign” by anonymously making extrajudicial statements against the defendants on a New Orleans news site.

“This case started as one featuring allegations of brazen abuse of authority, violation of the law and corruption of the criminal justice system,” he wrote in his order. “Unfortunately the focus has switched from the accused to the accusers. The government’s actions, and initial lack of candor and credibility thereafter, is like scar tissue that will long evidence infidelity to the principles of ethics, professionalism and basic fairness and common sense necessary to every criminal prosecutor, wherever it should occur in this country.”

The Duke University lacrosse players’ case is one of the most notorious of selective prosecution designed for political gain. North Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong made numerous public statements incriminating the team and turning the media against the defendants.

Despite the accuser’s history of falsely reporting incidents and lack of evidence, Mr. Nifong pushed the politically popular case in the midst of his re-election campaign. State officials took over the case, dismissing all charges, taking the unusual step of declaring the defendants innocent — not merely “not guilty” — and Mr. Nifong was ultimately disbarred.

Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky once said that “you can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners.” The same could be said of how fairly a judicial system prosecutes its accused defendants. Arrogance, not ethics, is emerging as criteria for prosecutorial discretion, and the result is a society based on fear, not freedom.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C.

I suppose it is a stretch to call governmental abuses liberalism. It’s pure corruption and has been present whenever government seizes too much power—and immunity. In these instances, the abusive acts have rebounded on their perpetrators. It’s a good start.