Tag Archives: Eric Cantor

Tea Party Terrorists and other Patriots

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Starting any conversation with “it’s not ideal” is a lead-in as disingenuous as the breakup line “It’s not you, it’s me” — both excuses are a pusillanimous way to look better by candy-coating the truth.  Yet that is exactly how Republicans in Congress — save a gang of 21 Congressmen and one woman who refused to submit to the President’s pressure — verbalized the imperfections of a debt deal that they claim to have made for the benefit of the nation.

After deciding to vote for a disappointing deal, riddled with guilt and refusing to make eye contact with the camera, Republicans explained the decision by commencing with rueful disclaimers.  From Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) to Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and right on through to Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), each one halfheartedly defended a bill that raises the debt ceiling, authorizes trillions in new debt, and while lowering discretionary spending stands to potentially leave the government $20 trillion in debt by the end of the decade.

Gone were the vibrant passion and firm indignation of a week earlier, when John Boehner and his caucus acted as if they had an actual backbone.  Cowed by Obama’s threats of default, starving seniors, and a government shutdown, the champions morphed into cowards and then offered the lame analogy that “the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars is a lot like redirecting or turning an aircraft carrier.”

Rather than disembark from a doomed jetliner headed south, Republicans en masse agreed to give Captain Barack Obama trillions more in Monopoly money and put him in a perfect position to do what he does best:  Place the blame elsewhere after the crash.

After resigning themselves to proudly voting “Yes,” Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison felt compelled to explain the rationale behind Republicans settling for removing a pinky toe from a gangrenous leg and calling it “better than nothing.” Kay Bailey Hutchinson said:

This is the best agreement we could have hoped for now, with Republicans in control of just the House of Representatives, and Democrats still controlling the Senate and White House. The agreement takes a series of small but significant steps in the right direction, which is better than big steps in the wrong direction.

Clearly, there remains a large group of Republicans in Washington DC who still don’t know which direction is the  “right direction” and apparently fail to comprehend that small steps deliver the same end if heading over a cliff — only at a more leisurely pace.

The only Republican caucus able to remain faithful to the constituency that placed them in power during the last election was comprised of 22 congresspersons all of which align themselves with the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party is a grassroots group of Americans from all political viewpoints, economic classes and income groups who believe in strict Constitutional principles, smaller government, less taxes, American sovereignty, and a balanced budget.  The political faction is so committed to the idea of rescuing America from the clutches of the likes of Barack Obama that they managed to incite a groundswell of support during the 2010 election season.  In turn, America was partially freed from the Democrats’ grip by an army of newly elected Republican/Tea Party favorites sent to Washington DC to slow President Obama’s liberal goose-stepping march toward European socialism.

Nonetheless, thanks to the left, an occasional RINO or two, and the media all working in tandem, the Tea Party is viewed as an assemblage of fringe-element radicals — unreasonable fanatics whose goal during the debt debate was to use difficult demands to spoil a bipartisan negotiation process that would otherwise be abounding in convivial compromise and cordial conciliation.

Middle-grounder, Senator John McCain (who looks a little like Gollum himself) called the Tea Party activists, refusing to compromise, “hobbits. ” McCain accused Tea Partiers of undermining the debt debate process by insisting that Republicans do what every Democrat, including the one leading the current charge to raise the debt limit, Barack Obama, did when G. W. Bush wanted to do the same thing, which was to vote against it.

In addition to Senator McCain’s insightful comments, Vice President Joe Biden provided his usual lucidity, calling Tea Partiers “terrorists,” and in so doing likely felt he was assisting the Department of Homeland Security while simultaneously providing clarity for moderates who have hungered for someone to blame for keeping the nation divided.

What Joe didn’t realize is that by saying the Tea Party is “acting like terrorists,” he misidentified a surviving faction of patriots who menace Democrats merely because they thwart the left’s plan to create a bankrupt, Godless, demoralized America void of liberty and burdened with bureaucratic bondage.

In the end, because of an anemic dedication to what they claim to profess, Republicans helped implement a compromise Obama’s big spending White House is lauding as a “bipartisan deal that is ‘A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline’,” which explains the apologetic attempt to defend caving under pressure.

In essence, for lack of a better plan, rather than dump the proposal into the proverbial harbor, faint-hearted Republicans requested surplus tea served with a spritz of lemon and lots of sugar.  Instead of joining Congressional representatives who have no problem being identified with an earlier group of Tea Party “terrorists” who refused to give in to the oppression of a king who lived to regret the words, “The colonies must either submit or triumph,” John Boehner and his conciliatory caucus of congressional cowards rejected Tea Party anti-tyrannical terror and submitted.

“Big Deal” Barack Breaks it Down

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Based on Barack Obama’s comments on the debt discussion breakdown, it’s clear that the President placed blame for the impasse squarely on the shoulders of John Boehner and the Republicans. At his testy post-debt negotiation press conference, “Big Deal” Barack conveniently forgot to mention that the impetus for John Boehner “walking away” from the negotiation table was the President’s insistence on fewer spending cuts and the $400 billion tax revenue surprise he foisted on an already strained process.

Who better than Barack Obama knows that “when it comes to actually doing something difficult folks do sometimes walk away?” In a spoiled, childish fit of anger, Obama has rudely pushed away from a table or two himself, stood up, and without explanation “walked away.”  The President did it with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and he did it again recently in the midst of heated debt-limit talks with Eric Cantor (R-VA), one of a few governmental grooms he has accused of “leaving [him] at the altar.”

Throughout most of his press conference, an undignified President pointed his finger at Republicans and blamed everyone but himself for the current stalemate, saying “I’m not interested in finger-pointing and I’m not interested in blame, but I just want the facts to speak for themselves.”

In case Americans haven’t noticed, the nation is presently being led by a reckless individual who excels in political posturing while saying things like, “I think [Americans are] fed up with political posturing and an inability for politicians to take responsible action as opposed to dodging their responsibilities.”

The President’s obvious lack of self-awareness, coupled with his immense capacity for self-delusion, must be the reason he doesn’t recognize that saying the House of Representatives’ “inability…to arrive at any kind of a position” is based on refusal to compromise “any of their ideological preferences,” is actually an accurate description of himself.

As the rancor drags on, it’s hard to find anyone, regardless of political persuasion, who would disagree that the debt crisis is serious.  However, what is even more troubling is having a President who refuses to recognize his own culpability for an already-stressed economy being further burdened by the added weight of healthcare reform, not to mention his stubborn determination to move the nation toward a European-style socialist system.

Typically, whenever the President doesn’t get his way, he shifts into irritated victimhood mode. During the self-exalting, adversarial attempt to pass blame, Obama implied the reason for the impasse hinged on Boehner caring more about partisanship and political posturing than the well-being of the nation, which was a strange accusation coming from a proud “progressive” ideologue like Barack Obama, whose “partisan” wouldn’t recognize a “bi” if it tripped over one.

Wait! In fairness to the President, although his comments did include 93 instances of “I,” he did cite Ronald Reagan twice, which could be considered a form of bipartisanship.  In addition to referring to a conservative icon, Barack Obama also boasted of personal “consistency” which, granted, he does exhibit when it comes to self-praise, perseverance on raising taxes, and spending money the nation doesn’t have.

Nonetheless, during the press conference an angry President peppered his Republicans-never-say-‘yes’-to-anything comments with standard class warfare allusions. Obama intimated that Boehner and Co. favor corporate jet owners and oil and gas companies, and go easy on prosperous individuals “making millions or billions of dollars,” like himself.  Always sensitive to struggling unemployed Americans, Obama took another opportunity to remind the nation that he’s “done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more,” but curiously still hasn’t.

Obama’s crotchety podium manner abounded with descriptions of seniors “being deprived of meals, Social Security and Medicare.” The President painted images of poor children rushing toward the entrances of emergency rooms for lack of Medicaid, disabled Americans “hanging by a thread,” people “thrown off the health care rolls,” and a future where only the children of corporate jet owners get to go to college

It doesn’t stop there; the press conference doubled as a quasi-stump speech. The President – who has taken no breaks in campaigning since 2007 and has scheduled his combination- 50th birthday celebration/$30,400 a ticket campaign fundraiser for the day after the nation officially runs out of cash – began by accusing the Republicans of not agreeing to his demand to raise taxes as “[a] campaign ploy going into the next election.”

The President even brought up talk radio and blamed the Tea Party for not wanting the debt ceiling raised, and for being at the root of Republicans being “stirred up” and drawing  “sharp ideological lines” that have made the deadlock impossible to break.

Obama said, “I mean, the American people are just desperate for folks who are willing to put aside politics just for a minute and try to get some stuff done.” Does Barack Obama believe that “moving goal posts,” crossed arms, pouts, immature vitriol, edicts to “get here at 11:00 am,” and refusing to go easy on an already-unstable economy and job market are also in the “stuff done” category?

Whenever boxed into a corner the President never fails to use the buzzword “fairness,” which suggests that everyone is unfair other than the benevolent Sheriff of Fairville, Barack Obama – America’s generous dispenser of limitless entitlements.

So adept at manipulation is Obama, that when he said “The hard part is actually dealing with the underlying debt and deficits, and doing it in a way that’s fair. That’s all the American people are looking for — some fairness,” the implication was that America still sees Obama-style “fairness” as the answer to the problem.

Based on his remarks, Obama must want the nation to believe he spends a large part of his day reading mail from fair-minded Americans, who believe “neither party is blameless,” and who want a just President like him to solve the debt/deficit problem without “balanc[ing] the budget on the backs of seniors.”

The President’s comments at his post-debt-negotiation-breakdown press conference imply that he perceives himself to be that “somebody” the nation is “looking for…to look out for them.”

Bordering on deluded, the President, who must assume that “leading” is what he’s doing, challenged Republicans by saying that “at some point, I think if you want to be a leader, then you got to lead.” Happy to rise to Obama’s challenge, Congressional leaders did just that, and did so by choosing to exclude Obama from post-press conference debt negotiation talks. Boehner and McConnell summoned a clueless Pelosi and a “very angry” Reid in an attempt to solve the debt crisis without “Big Deal” Barack who, instead of leading, points fingers, pouts and projects onto others his own pugnacious behavior.

Barack’s Bankruptcy/Birthday Bash

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

After struggling with noncompliant Republicans over the debt-ceiling debate, in what appears to be an effort to soothe his “agitated” self, President Obama has scheduled a high-priced 50th birthday bash in honor of the day he graced the planet with his greatness.  The news comes just days after Obama was lamenting the burden of having to keep “hundreds of thousands of [unnecessary] dollars in additional income.”  The President encouraged people to take the extra money that would otherwise provide stuffing for the worn-out mattresses Americans haven’t been able to replace in a recession and look for an opportunity to help a brother or sister in need.

Barack’s Birthday Bonanza has been scheduled for August 4th — the day after the United States of America is due to officially downshift from the black into the red. The festivities should be a pleasant albeit bizarre distraction from the weeping and gnashing of teeth taking place outside the walls of the concert hall, if the nation actually defaults.

Either way, the elaborate Chicago event will serve as an all-in-one Obama 2012 campaign fundraiser, concert, and birthday celebration.  The affair comes complete with celebrities, crooning, swooning, and singing praises to the man who just needs more time to usher in the Hope and Change he’s yet to deliver thanks to obstacles like former president G. W. Bush, the intractable Eric Cantor (R-VA), and the perpetually pesky Fox News.

Still, Obama exhorting self-sacrifice one day and then charging to attend a function in his honor the next is where this party thing gets a little dicey.

The entry fee to get into the Aragon Ballroom for Barry’s big day will cost well-heeled couples a large pile of the type of “additional income” Obama just the other day suggested they should give to the needy. Without having to win the “Dinner with Barack and Biden” raffle, donors willing to part with $35,800 get to enjoy a private dinner with the President and VIP seating at a birthday concert rumored to be featuring native Chicagoans.

Spending thousands of dollars worth of “additional income” to see Obama blow out 50 birthday candles isn’t exactly the type of altruistic endeavor the President promoted when he mentioned parents struggling to pay college tuition.  Nevertheless, at least the President is doing a good deed by helping ease the burden he suffers daily of having to keep “additional income” that could be put to better use.

Heaven knows most people can always manage with a little less, and even if they can’t, the President is convinced that most Americans, regardless of their situation, have more than they actually need. In fact, the real reason behind the President hosting a function where he’ll stuff disposable cash into his campaign coffers, contributed by anyone willing to cough it up, is to reaffirm his commitment to training the nation to make do with less.

President Obama is even making sure, regardless of economic strata, that “shared sacrifice” is truly shared.  At the birthday show, there’ll even be a limited-availability $50 “neediest among us” section for those who view the cost of admittance as an investment in an Obama second term, where he’ll have another chance to fulfill his promise to provide free gas and monthly mortgage payments to those still having trouble making ends meet.

General admission will be more costly for the wealthier devotee who would rather splurge on a $200 glimpse of Barack Obama across a crowded ballroom than contribute “additional income” to a family in need of groceries.  For those who don’t consider a party a real party without access to adult beverages, the evening will cost $1000 worth of “additional income” to clink glasses with likeminded people in between rounds of party games, which could include Pin the Tail on the Donkeycrat.

Finally, one semester’s worth of tuition monies that could assist a struggling family with college-age children will purchase birthday celebrants a photo with the guest of honor.  Funny, wasn’t it just yesterday that Obama hammered away at top earners and corporate jet owners who, ironically, are the only ones with the money to plunk down $10,000 for a $5.99 prom-photo-quality souvenir featuring a smiling President with pockets full of evil rich people’s “additional income?”

As Barack Obama tries to decide whether or not to have Jennifer Hudson sing what is fast becoming the perfect Obama Victory Fund 2012 theme song – “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going,” the President’s insolvency/$35K per couple birthday party will provide the perfect milieu to juxtapose against the monetary mayhem wreaking havoc across the nation.

However, there remains one glaring contradiction surrounding the expensive social event, which is that the festivities are being financed with donations gathered from the very people Barack Obama has just criticized for hoarding the “additional income” they need to afford entry into a high-priced shindig like the one he decided to throw for himself.

In the end, the Barack Bankruptcy/Birthday Bash, which will likely feature a 10-tiered “Yes We Can” birthday cake, turns out to be another opportunity for the President to illustrate to the American public he’s dead serious about his refusal to bow to spending cuts, and he’s willing to pull out all the stops to prove it.  In addition, Barack can use the event to clarify his recent comments concerning Americans giving money they don’t need to the needy and explain that the only time charitable “shared sacrifice” gets a pass is if those with extra funds decide to shower those extras on him.

Rubio is on the March for Life

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Apparently, Barack Obama is proud to go down in history as the one politician whose pro-choice scorecard has more “Yes” checks on it than anyone else’s.  The President celebrated the 38th anniversary of a law that legalized killing more than 50 million unborn children by making a statement that reassured pro-choice America that when it comes to abortion, he’s the man.

Barack Obama responded to the 2011 March for Life in Washington DC by recommitting to protecting the right to choose, while Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) called abortion what it is: “Tragic.”

Although Obama “rocked” the youth vote in 2008, America’s radically pro-choice president chose to ignore the more than 27,000 youths who rallied for life at the annual March.  The unusually large throng of young people in attendance at this year’s event apparently possesses somber insight into a chilling reality that, unlike past generations, the only reason they’re alive is because a woman who could have disposed of them decided not to.

Since 1973, nearly 10 times the six million people who died in the Holocaust have been murdered in abortion clinics across the nation. Reverend Ivany of the Catholic Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda said “The greatest difference between other civil rights movements and this one is that most of the people affected by Roe v. Wade can’t march on Washington. They can’t give great speeches.”

According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and much to the dismay of abortion rights advocates, new Republicans in Congress are the “biggest and the most pro-life freshman class in memory.”  A glut of pro-lifers populating Congress pose a worrisome dilemma for the left, whose concern continues to be potential impact that bills like the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act could have on making sure abortion is well-funded.

Pro-choice America wants to choose who lives and who dies as well as deny the choice they cherish by forcing those who reject barbarism to contribute tax dollars to America’s legalized killing machine.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) who introduced a “measure that supporters say would ensure that the health-care reform bill passed last year [won’t] allow funding for abortion coverage.”  The New Jersey Congressman appropriately coined Barack “the abortion president,” and according to Obama’s record on abortion, that he is.

Nevertheless, according to a nun who attended the march: “It’s reverence for life,” that brought thousands of young people to Washington DC this year.” Sister Marilyn Minter said: “It’s interesting to me to see young kids want to respect life at every single level – birth to death,” which may be why 39 year-old US Senator Marco Rubio expressed the following:

I proudly stand in solidarity with those attending today’s March for Life, as well as all those across the country who share its objectives.  On this day, we remember the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, whereby the Supreme Court determined that equal protection and equal rights do not apply to the unborn.  In doing so, the court rejected the truth that all of our rights are derived from the self-evident, fundamental right to life.

God bless young senator Marco Rubio who, had he been born one year later, could have been among the 775,000 children aborted in 1973.  Such a tragic loss would have deprived America of another much-needed pro-life champion courageous enough to stand for life.

The Bipartisan Love Train

Originally posted at American Thinker

Once again, an endeavor to manipulate public opinion is gaining momentum.  The effort is being initiated by Democrat Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) who, in the name of bipartisan unity, challenged Republicans to forfeit party identification and blur the clearly cut line between left and right by proposing a “symbolic gesture of unity.”
Senator Udall proposed that at the upcoming State of the Union address, House leaders shuffle the Democrat/Republican seating deck and, in a show of unified camaraderie, “head across the aisle.”

Following the shooting in Arizona, the right was accused of instigating the tragedy with uncivil discourse.  Now the left is employing the tactic of inviting Republicans to surrender clear-cut party delineation in an attempt to send a message that those they falsely accused of inspiring violence have agreed to join hands in an effort to reassure the nation that amity, not dissension, reigns.  Talk about a setup.

After a hard-fought and hard-won election where Republicans distinguished themselves as the antithesis to Barack Obama, his policies, and the direction in which the left wanted to take the country, it’s amazing that Udall’s request is gaining momentum on the right.

It’s just two months and two weeks after a rancorous election, and “two dozen members of Congress publicly endorse the idea” to share the peace pipe in full view of the entire nation during the State of the Union address?

Maybe Udall can also suggest ending the evening on a high note with a concord/conga line executed in time to “Love Train” by the O’Jays.

Now that the election is over, does the anchor of conservatism intend to forfeit core convictions to coalesce in unanimity with the morally relativistic flotsam and jetsam of politics called liberalism?  Moreover, if the right identifies with the political wreckage on the left, aren’t conservatives living out the very philosophy America elected them to refute?

Nevertheless, Udall’s office says several of his Senate Democratic colleagues are aboard that love train, some of whom include California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.
A few Democrats in the House also jumped aboard, including Chellie Pingree (D-ME), who, in an effort to distance herself from uncivil discourse, proposed expunging the word “killing” from the name of the “Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Act.”

On the right, the usual suspects — Snowe, Collins, and McCain — have already signed on, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced she is now “co-leader” of the plunk-down-in-a-seat-next-to-a-political-nemesis initiative.

Murkowski is of the opinion that when President Obama addresses a joint session, “[c]ongressional reaction to the president’s State of the Union address has increasingly come to symbolize the sharp partisan divide in Congress.  So we think a good first step towards greater civility would be for senators and congressmen, Republicans and Democrats, to sit together in the House chamber.”

Lukewarm legislators Snowe’s and Collins’ interests in Udall’s proposal are predictable, but what is Majority Leader Eric Cantor thinking, saying he’d be “happy to sit with any of his colleagues during the State of the Union address”?  So is the idea that if Cantor is lost in the crowd, look for lefty Sherrod Brown (D-OH)?

Do conservatives who support the proposal to play musical chairs with Democrats think that presenting animage where the nation cannot differentiate between the left and the right will somehow heal the crises liberals have inflicted on the nation?  Maybe Jim DeMint (R-SC) should remind his conservative colleagues that in addition to reading the Constitution, they should also read the Bible, which clearly states in Psalm 1: “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked … or sit in the company of mockers.”

At least one House member has unwavering conviction and a backbone when it comes to “bad company corrupting the reputation of a political party.”  Unfortunately, that person is on the left.  Unlike Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) has not warmed up to Mr. Unison Udall’s idea and maintains that “[t]he president’s speech on economic rights for the American people should bring us together, not the seating chart.”

Republicans could learn a thing or two from Jesse Jackson, Jr. about refusing to compromise, even if only symbolically.  The seating at the State of the Union address, be it partisan or bipartisan, should hinge directly on liberals admitting to a wrongheaded philosophy that has saturated American society with lawlessness and godlessness and an ideology whose damage no amount of seat-shuffling could ever rectify.

In fact, prior to the State of the Union, the Republicans have a unique opportunity to get Democrats to agree to a few seating arrangement concessions.  To earn a seat next to Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Republicans could demand that Steny Hoyer (D-MD) start by admitting Democrat culpability for economic irresponsibility, progressive ideas rooted in socialism and communism, and personally participating in the demise of 60 million unborn children.  While he’s at it, as a representative of his party, Steny could also accept responsibility for undermining national security, bankrupting America, admitting to wrongly pushing health care down the throats of the resistant, destroying the American education system, and an obsession with political correctness to the detriment of American society.

Republicans are making a mistake if, in the name of peace, they choose to show bipartisan spirit by wearing the same jersey as the opposing team.  The public could interpret linking arms with the left as Republicans moderating their stance against much of what they claimed to reject during the campaign.

Furthermore, a conservative sitting next to an exuberant Democrat will accomplish the goal of the left by highlighting the right’s lack of bipartisanship, and it will do so while simultaneously emasculating a strong Republican identity.  Without uttering one word, every time a Democrat jumps to his or her feet, wildly clapping in agreement with what the president proposes or promotes, and a Republican remains sitting, the visual image will emphasize the right’s refusal to work together with an amicable party seeking only to further the greater good of the nation.

%d bloggers like this: