OPERATION REMOVE SPEAKER BOEHNER by Josh Bernstein

Fire Boehner

Mr. Speaker,

Here we are again. Maybe you remember me. I am the Conservative Talk Show Host Josh Bernstein who over the summer due to your weakness and ineptitude instructed listeners and followers of my top rated show to send you some balls. I am sad to say that apparently you did not receive enough of them. I thought over the summer that Barack Obama was the main obstacle to getting America back on track, however I was wrong. Barack Obama is certainly a big part of the problem, but unfortunately for Republicans so are you. I and many frustrated Americans now can clearly see that not only does the President need to go but so do you as well.

Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago millions of Americans rose up and voted to put the checks and balances that have sorely been missing back in Washington. They gave House Republicans a historic margin of victory in the November Mid Term Elections and elected nine new Republicans to give our party back control of the Senate. Americans we tired of the scandals, tired of the lies, and overwhelmingly repudiated the President’s policies.

Mr. Speaker, what you have done in the last few days was reprehensible and unforgivable. Your actions will have a negative effect on all Americans for years to come. Once again, The President, has broken the law by passing illegal Executive Amnesty and you have done nothing to stop him. Article one, Section eight, Clause four of the United States Constitution clearly states that all matters of Naturalization are to be originated in the Congress. Barack Obama has used the Executive Branch to pass a law that illegally changes Naturalization and he did so without Congress. This is clearly an impeachable offense.

Mr. Speaker, we know that you don’t possess the testicular fortitude to impeach the President as I have made that point abundantly clear over the summer however I did not think you would stand idly by and allow the President to usurp the rule of law and incredibly not even try to stop him. You and the so called House leadership promised to not fund the President’s Amnesty program however you broke that promise, among numerous others. You and the House leadership have the ability to block the Executive Amnesty program simply by inserting language into any bill that forbids The Department of Homeland Security from appropriating any monies or fees to be used for any type of Amnesty program. You recently made a comment that the American people do not trust the President. That may be true, however I think it is fair to say that the American people do not trust you either.

Mr. Speaker, by passing this trillion dollar spending bill you have broken numerous promises to those voters that helped keep you in power. You have also weakened the position of the new incoming Congress by taking away some of their power, leverage, and maneuverability by funding the government till September of 2015.

Mr. Speaker, why would you squander this enormous amount of political capital? What did you have to gain by passing a trillion dollar spending bill? Why didn’t you just do a continuing resolution to fund the government up until the new Congress takes over in January? Don’t you understand that you were elected to stop the President’s agenda not to go along with it? Your actions could also suppress future Republican turnout in 2016 as millions of voters will feel as though their vote truly does not count.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is a government shutdown would have been much less damaging than passing yet another irresponsible spending bill that future generations will have to pay for. You bought the left’s lie that a government shutdown will hurt Republicans. Well, take a good look at the results of this November’s mid term? Do you think it really hurt us? Not only did you pass this bill but once again did so without reading it? The left must be just as shocked at your actions as most of us on the right are. I hope you are dressing up as Santa Claus at the White House Christmas Party because you have been very generous handing out tax payer funded gifts to the Democrats while stuffing Conservatives stockings with coal.

Mr. Speaker, I can not sit back and allow you to govern this way anymore. If you fought the Democrats with the same tenacity and vigor that you fight the Conservatives in your own party, the President would not have done half the things he has done so far. The President understands that there are no consequences for his actions which is the reason he has been as brazen as he has. I do not blame the President for his actions as much as I blame you and your leadership or lack thereof, for providing the environment for which this President has been able to operate in. If you had the conviction of your character and you truly believed in the rule of law and the Constitution you would have held the President accountable a long time ago for his actions.

Mr. Speaker, I am calling on millions of fed up Americans to contact their representatives and ask them not to vote for you as Speaker and to instead remove you from leadership. My hope is that this letter goes viral and one of the 67 House Conservatives steps up and challenges you for your Speakership. I am convinced that if you are to remain the leader of the House Republicans that this historical election victory will have been wasted.

For those that are reading this please click on this link for further instructions on how to remove the Speaker:

http://www.crowsnestpolitics.com/2014/12/13/boehner-replacement-instructions-your-step-by-step-guide-to-replacing-the-speaker/

Mr. Speaker, I really wish I did not have to write this type of letter to you again but you leave me no choice. I love this country way too much and can not watch in good conscience as you aid and abet this President in our destruction.

Respectfully,

Josh Bernstein

Host of The Josh Bernstein Show

SideBear: From the internet rumor mill:

There is a buzz going around that Obama has something on Boner, whether it is true or not we may never know. It could be the Speaker has been caught in some hanky panky or some ill gotten money deal, but it sure fits the narrative as to why Boner surrendered to Obama.

Epitaph for Hope and Change By Victor Davis Hanson

Obama has fundamentally transformed America, all right — but not as he intended.

A perfect storm brought into power Barack Obama, a previously little-known Illinois community organizer. He had at best a mediocre record as a state legislator and rookie senator. Yet he quickly dazzled the liberal establishment. Joe Biden and Harry Reid were wowed by his sounding and behaving like a white liberal, while retaining the ability to turn on his supposedly authentic black persona when needed. That he had no record of achievement was seen as an advantageous clean slate. Teleprompted glibness was preferred to ad hoc repartee, as if an entire presidency could be scripted and Photoshopped with backdrops of Greek columns and Latin mottos.

In general, since World War II the American electorate has not voted into the presidency Northern liberals like Obama — or any Democrat (except JFK) without a Southern accent. A drawl apparently offered voters in the past some superficial reassurance of centrism. In the last five decades, Northern progressive candidates — Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis — all failed, whereas Southerners like Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore all won the popular vote.

But the events of 2008 were exceptional, and were hyped as 1932 all over again: as evidence of the failure of market capitalism and the need for a neo-socialist correction. The McCain–Palin lead late in the campaign collapsed after the September financial meltdown, as Wall Street excess was, fairly or not, tied to the supposedly rich, uncaring Republican establishment. John McCain, we were told, did not even know how many houses he owned. The successful surge in Iraq was still dubbed by the media a failure and did not assuage American anger at the costly war. After Iraq, Katrina, and the failed reform of Social Security, incumbent president George W. Bush had grown abjectly unpopular.

McCain, in the manner that Adlai Stevenson had distanced himself from an unpopular Harry Truman, ran as much against Bush as he did against Obama. In 2008, there was no incumbent president or vice president on the ticket; it was the first orphaned and wide-open election since 1952.

Obama ran on his iconic status as the would-be first black president. For the most part, he hid his spread-the-wealth agenda. A plumber did better than establishment journalists at prying out a smidgen of Obama’s worldview. The media helped reduce Obama’s Chicago friends such as Bill Ayers, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko to complete strangers. To evoke them was tantamount to racism.

The result was a full-fledged liberal presidential agenda of a sort not seen since the New Deal. Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy were more centrists and realists than progressive true believers.

Read more at NRO Online

Obamacare and Eugenics By David Catron

Is “positive selection” a part of PPACA’s cost control strategy?

The scariest words uttered during Jonathan Gruber’s recent appearance before the House Oversight Committee were “positive selection.” They were read aloud by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, from a 1997 paper the professor co-authored concerning abortion. The opus in question made the Congressman uneasy because of the following passage: “By 1993 all cohorts under the age 19 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of $1.6 billion per year from positive selection.” Rep. Massie asked the professor what was meant by “positive selection.” This question was evidently not anticipated in Gruber’s pre-testimony coaching, so he became evasive.

Considering what it means, this is no surprise. “Positive selection” is no ordinary example of academic jargon. The term is frequently used by evolutionary biologists, who tell us it is responsible for the development of “traits that define our species—notably the enormous brain, advanced cognitive abilities, complex vocal organs, bipedalism and opposable thumbs.” And Gruber refers to mass abortions of unborn babies, whom he describes as “marginal children,” as an example of positive selection that includes the added benefit of saving the government money. Should we be worried that an architect of Obamacare seems to be an advocate of what sounds an awful lot like eugenics?

And, attempts by the Democrats to revise history notwithstanding, Gruber did play an important part in Obamacare’s design. As I pointed out in this space a few weeks ago, he is known to have been present at high-level White House meetings at which crucial decisions were made concerning controversial provisions of the law. Moreover, the Obama DOJ has frequently cited him in its court filings relating to King v. Burwell and other crucial cases relating to PPACA. Considering his views on the subject, it is virtually certain that Gruber was also involved in the decision to require insurance carriers to include abortion coverage in policies sold through Obamacare exchanges.

Thus, despite the President’s guarantee to gulls like former congressman Bart Stupak that Obamacare would not fund abortions, a recent report from the Government Accountability Office indicates that 1,036 health plans sold through exchanges in 28 states cover “abortion services.” Is it reasonable to associate this with eugenics? To answer that question, it’s necessary to contrast those who insist on the coverage of abortions with the people who actually avail themselves of these “services.” Oddly enough, it is primarily middle class white progressives who push abortion on demand, but most of those who send their unborn babies to “Elsewhere” are women of color.

It is the unborn babies of these African-American and Hispanic women whom Gruber has relegated to the status of “Marginal children.”

Read more at American Spectator

SideBear: Who are we as mire mortal beings to decide who should live and who should die? Is this not the province of some higher authority? And for what “cost saving” to a government that pisses away more money every day on none essentials.

The Expert’s Cloudy Crystal Balls By Alan Caruba

In late October I wrote a commentary “Is America in Decline?” based on a book by James MacDonald, “When Globalism Fails: The Rise and Fall of Pax Americana”, due for sale in January from Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Within days I received “The Accidental Super Power: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and The Coming Global Disorder” by Peter Zeihan.

Both authors have good credentials, but the former concludes our position as a super power will recede in the decades ahead and the latter says we will be the only one left as the rest of the world runs into problems that the U.S. will be able to ignore.

Zeihan, a geopolitical analyst, offers the scenario of an America, blessed by its location and ability to provide its own energy and agriculture, that will be largely untouched by a future in which most other nations will suffer various unpleasant levels of decline.

Both Zeihan and MacDonald see the U.S. abandoning its role since the end of World War II in 1945 as the generator and protector of free trade.

Our naval capability has kept the world’s sea lanes open and free of predators, a boon to all nations. A system for free trade set up at Breton Woods in 1944 has served the world well, including former enemies, Germany and Japan. Other nations, depending on their location, resources, and population, have had varying degrees of success.

“The conventional wisdom that the United States’ best days are behind it” says Zeihan, “isn’t simply wrong. It’s laughably so. In 2014 we’re not witnessing the beginning of the end of American power, but the end of the beginning. In fact, we’re on the cusp of a shift in the international order just as profound as those delegates back in 1944 experienced.”

While MacDonald sees the role of the U.S. as Pax Americana waning, Zeihan sees a national withdrawal from the international scene based on the wealth the shale oil and natural gas technology is generating and the productivity of our huge agricultural sector to keep us fed while other nations struggle to grow and find food sources.

I disagree with Zeihan. Americans don’t like having to be involved in the problems that other nations create, but they also see themselves as the solution whether it is deterring rogue nations that threaten their neighbors or aiding when a natural disaster occurs.

Zeihan focuses on the role of maritime power on the oceans that gave rise to Great Britain and other nations that could field a navy that could trade at great distances from their homelands. The history of colonization reflects that power. Internally, he points out how blessed the U.S. has been with a waterway system of numerous navigable rivers that made it possible, for example, to grow wheat in the midland but ship it anywhere. This ability to transport food crops as well as people opened America to fairly rapid expansion and growth.

Unlike other nations, its population came from everywhere and reproduced at rates to meet its need for labor, while its free market system, along with the industrial revolution, stimulated innovation and growth. The oldest constitutional government in the world generated confidence in an “idea” called freedom and liberty instead of relying on blind nationalism.

While I may disagree with some of Zeihan’s predictions about the future, his book provides a wealth of information about the individual advantages and disadvantages of the nations whom we regard as either friendly toward or threatening our nation. Their locations are critical to their future and always have been. Their ability to transport people and goods within and beyond those locations are also critical factors.

Overlaying that is demographics, the statistics of population, identifying which nations whose people are “getting older” and which have enough younger people to generate wealth while the older generation retires and lives off their own savings and/or government programs such as our Social Security and Medicare.

Zeihan points out that “The United States is far and away the world’s largest consumer market and has been since shortly after the Civil War. As of 2014, that consumer base amounts to roughly $1.5 trillion. That’s triple anyone else, larger than the consumer bases of the next six countries—Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, China and Italy—combined, and double that of the combined BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).”

Zeihan believes that “the free trade era is closing (and) demography tell us that the era of consumption-driven growth that has been the economic norm for seventy years is coming to an unceremonious end.” He believes that the “global financial wave will crest at some point between 2020 and 2024” and predicts that “Poland and Russia will be among the nations whose populations will not keep up with their need for labor.”

“Between 2020 and 2024, thirteen of the world’s top twenty-five economies will be in the ranks of the financially distressed. The new arrivals will include Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and of course the United States. With 90 percent of the developed world in that unfortunate basket, the availability of capital and credit for all will plummet.”

That Ziehan’s scenario and he blames it on “aging demographies”, but he does not factor in the ability for various elements of the world’s population, the younger ones in particular, to move around the planet and respond to occupational opportunities.

A current example is the exodus from Mexico and some Latin American nations to the United States for jobs and better lives. Can we absorb the current numbers of illegal aliens? I think yes and I also believe being able to impose “security” along a two thousand mile southern border is probably a fantasy. If we actually enforced our immigration laws this problem would be reduced.

Mexico is our third largest trading partner. To the north Canada ranks second. Together we make up a continent, as Zeihan predicts, that will not be negatively affected as other nations.

So, while we worry about Russia, Zeihan sees it in rapid decline. While pundits tell us of China’s rise to financial preeminence, he reminds us that we felt the same about Japan not that long ago. And China has massive demographic problems, not the least of which is an aging population. He doesn’t hold out much hope for the European Union. Et cetera.

I do not possess Zeihan’s or MacDonald’s credentials, but my instinct tells me that a sudden, rapid international decline is unlikely to occur. It’s a different world in which we all live and far more connected in many ways. Adjustments and changes will be made as they always have, but we are not likely to see a century like the last one that was dominated by wars. They are just too expensive.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

FYI: We Lost the Cold War By Alicia Colon

Ah, remember that glorious day in 1989 when the Berlin War came down and we all celebrated the fall of Communism?

Well it may have ended over in Germany but it rose like a Phoenix here in America thanks to the covert machinations of the home-grown Saul Alinskyites.

Could anybody who was born over 50 years ago have imagined that in this greatest nation founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, one would be penalized for flying the America Flag on their balconies? How about not being able to say ‘G0D Bless you’ when someone sneezes in school? How about teachers in Las Vegas planning to teach children in kindergarten about masturbation? Could you ever believe that CEOs of powerful companies (Mozilla) would be forced to resign because they opposed gay marriage? Who would think that the government would be telling businesses that they have to subvert their religious principles to cater to what really amounts to a small segment of the population? Imagine the government dictating what kind of bulbs you can use, what size drinks you can buy and forcing you to buy health insurance or else? Imagine the agency that Americans fear most-the I.R.S, being used to punish the enemy of the party in power. Imagine a government agency instituted to protect homeland security facilitating thousands of illegals immigrants including alleged drug cartel members and disease-ridden children into our neighborhoods. Why are pastors joining communists protesting in Ferguson, Missouri over a valid grand jury decision? Because the Communists Party has been totally involved in stirring up the looting nimrods in that community who just want free stuff.

How did we get to the point where in Gitmo we cater to the rights of terrorists responsible for the maiming and murders of American soldiers and providing them with better care than they would receive in their own countries? Are their high-powered attorneys that Al Qaeda or the taxpayer is probably paying for aware that these terrorists do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions because these conventions are applicable to prisoners of lawful wars between sovereign states? These terrorists are illegal combatants and are not covered by the standards of international law but all the ACLU and Amnesty International and all the various civil rights organizations have to do is raise a hue and cry in the media and the wusses in Washington cave in.

In an earlier column I wrote about the danger “When Metrosexuals Rule the Nation.” Judson Phillips, in a column published in JWR, just wrote about the “Neutering of America.”

But none of what is happening to this great country should be a surprise if we accept the fact the Communists have won the Cold War. Saul Alinsky was a very clever Marxist who realized that Communism could not win by the usual violent tactics. It would have to be won by community organizers who would demonize the enemy by uniting the opposition and thus gain entry to the political process thus infiltrating the power structure. In his 12 rules for radicals, Alinsky summed it up this way-revolutionaries need to cut their hair, wear suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky knew that it would be a long deliberate process but to be successful, radicals would have to infiltrate existing institutions like the churches, academia, unions and political parties. Two of his most successful disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Read more at Jewish World Review